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

spotmarkedx

2008-03-07, 04:06 PM

for the link-phobic or firewalled:

Portion in memorial of Gary Gygax:
Thoughts While Waiting for the Phone to Ring
Posted By: WotC_Dave, 3/6/2008 10:18:35 AM

Gygax: It's been what, two months since I blogged. But blogging seemed like a good call right now, because I'm waiting for a call from RadioLive in Auckland, New Zealand. They want to talk about Gary Gygax, of course. A lot of us have been doing various media-type things since he passed away on Tuesday--basic "what did Gary do, and what's the deal with D&D anyway?" interviews, mostly. It's an honor to be asked. And I am exactly shallow enough to feel a little pride on behalf of our weird little hobby that our sorrow is making the news. Even people who wouldn't know a displacer beast from a blink dog "get it" in the sense that they know that Gary was a very big deal.

I know a lot of us have posted our thoughts in various blogs already. And because we recorded a podcast on Tuesday, hours after we found out that Gary had passed away, I'll let what we said there stand for itself, rather than repeating it here.

But I can tell you what Tuesday was like for us here at the office. It's crunch time, sure, and it was the day that a lot of the folks who went to D&D Experience staggered back into the office. As you might imagine, things were pretty somber. Then, despite the core rulebook galleys that are wending their way through our cubicles like a serpent, we knocked off at about 4 p.m. and went to a bar to raise a few pints to Gary. We read aloud from the 1st edition DMG (I got dibs on the "honorable death" part in the preface). We told stories of the old days at TSR (and by "we," I mean "Kim Mohan and Steve Winter"). But even us young'uns reminisced about what it was like to be a young D&D fan in the 1980s. Mike Selinker showed up, as did Jason Bulmahn. Good times, even if we all wish the circumstances were different.

And I think that even as I type this, there might be a tribute of another sort going on. I can hear dice rolling over in the "dev pit"--the next bank of cubicles over. Stephen Radney-McFarland said something about "no, you can't reroll--there are no rerolls in D&D!" And Mike Mearls just said, "Seventeen! Look out, ladies!"

It's safe to say they're making up 1st edition characters.

Portion regarding 4e:
Fast Forward Three Editions From There...And you get to my Thursday night game. Our Eberron campaign, which has run for about a year and a half, reached an ignominious conclusion. The PCs were working their way through a fortress in the Demon Wastes--a fortress infested with conspirators of Mu Tahn Laa, The Inescapable Madness. Mu Tahn Laa, who's been imprisoned by Gatekeeper seals for millenia, has grown restive and is trying to break the seals that bind him. Naturally, the PCs have been trying to stop him, because they don't see the upside in a world that gibbers and capers before the death-dealing tread of an ancient demon-king.

But in the heart of the fortress, the heroes were overcome. Overcome as in a total party kill. And nobody's getting those bodies back. So Hammer, Karhun, Isidro, and Dessin are dead, done, finito.

So what happened? As with many TPKs, it was a confluence of events. They made a couple of tactical errors. They let the bad guys spread them out. They didn't focus fire enough. They took some needless damage (some of the conspirators of Mu Tahn Laa have heads that explode when they first take damage, so you want to soften the bad guys up with a ranged attack first, rather than drop an ice storm that'll make a whole bunch of heads explode right next to the paladin and rogue. And they were slow to realize that they were in over their heads, and the monsters happened to have good countermeasures for fleeing PCs in any case.

It was a great, epic fight. It probably ran for more than an hour and had 20 rounds, easy. But for a lot of it, everyone at the table could see things slowly slipping away.

But that's all on their side of the screen. They were also done in by something I learned about 4th edition. Fighting two encounters simultaneously is far more lethal than it used to be. That's probably good for the game on balance, but it does impose some new caution in my adventure design (or it should have, at any rate).

In 3rd edition, it wasn't necessarily a big deal if two rooms' worth of monsters attacked you at once. The CR 12 monster in room A4 and the CR 12 monster in room A5--well, that's still just an EL 14 encounter and only incrementally more difficult than those two rooms tackled separately. But in 4th edition, it really feels like something that's twice as hard. Which isn't to say it's impossible--my Thursday guys might have pulled out a victory with a little more luck and a little more foresight. But you can't blithely kick open door after door, that's for sure.

You don't want to eliminate the possibility of kicking in two doors at the same time, of course. And it's rarely worth the effort to bend over backwards during adventure design to protect the players from themselves. But you can bet that I'm going to include more doors rather than doorways, more ambient sound, and more "baffle space" between encounters in my site-based adventures in 4th edition.

So what do I do now? What's the post-TPK plan? Well, the Thursday night gang has been instructed to make up a 21st-level character for a week from tonight. Anything is fair game, but their back story must include something that's put them metaphorically "on ice" for the last hundred years. They're going to get thawed and told: "A thousand mad years of demons running amok have rendered Eberron almost unrecognizeable. Your job: Fix it."

That ought to be sufficiently epic. And it'll keep them (and me) busy for a while.

Out of Context: "The thing about the name 'Cubiclewild' is that there's so much tension built into the name itself."

edit: broke wall of text into two sections for those that want to skip directly to 4e related info.

Human Paragon 3

2008-03-07, 04:09 PM

That sounds kickass, as does his next campaign.

Toliudar

2008-03-07, 11:18 PM

...I couldn't get past the "heads explode when they first take damage." Can you picture a LESS appealing template to take? :smallbiggrin:

Fhaolan

2008-03-08, 12:11 AM

Miles Invictus

2008-03-08, 01:24 AM

...I couldn't get past the "heads explode when they first take damage." Can you picture a LESS appealing template to take? :smallbiggrin:

Better be careful, there are some 'round here that would take that to be a challenge. :smallbiggrin:

"Heads immediately and harmlessly deflate when they first take damage."

Give us a hard one! :smalltongue:

Indon

2008-03-08, 02:56 AM

Yes, over-CR encounters are theoretically just as potentially fatal in 4'th edition as they were in 3'rd - perhaps even moreso, since in 3'rd edition a couple critical hits can easily swing the tide of battle in the player's favor.

But the fact remains that by abstracting out statistical deviance in the system, challenges are less risky. Wizards just as much states it in their blurb about how critical hits will work - randomness favors the monsters. So the more randomness your game has, the more dangerous every monster can be.

And the reduction of significance of critical hits, the increase in initial health and decrease in health and damage scaling (do you think you'll ever roll 10d6 damage in 4'th edition D&D?), and the removal of save-or-dies (or even save-or-neutralized), lead to far less randomness, which leads to far less risk. Yes, it means less time moping about because your character got one-shotted by the dragon, or he failed his save versus spontaneous combustion. But fighting dragons and things that can spontaneously combust you had the potential to be hella exciting, largely because of that.

So while D&D characters may not be invincible, they're just a little bit closer to the same impact on fun being invincible would have on the game.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-08, 08:09 AM

But the fact remains that by abstracting out statistical deviance in the system, challenges are less risky. Wizards just as much states it in their blurb about how critical hits will work - randomness favors the monsters. So the more randomness your game has, the more dangerous every monster can be.

Abstracting out statistical deviance doesn't make challenges less risky, it makes the risks more consistent.

It is simply better design, in a game which requires people to make strategic decisions about risks, to make those risks relatively consistent.

The problem with randomness is that it doesn't make things more "risky" it just makes them more likely to screw you for no reason. It's completely ludicrous to have a system where your character can take 49HP of damage without blinking, but 50HP has a 5% chance of proving instantly fatal. It's inconsistent.

Save or die spells are similarly problematic. Once you accept that high level characters are magically protected from being decapitated by swords or stuck through with arrows, it's silly to allow wizards to bypass all of that with a single spell.

DementedFellow

2008-03-08, 10:32 AM

Erom

2008-03-08, 10:51 AM

Protip: Read the link before you respond.

Starsinger

2008-03-08, 10:54 AM

DementedFellow

2008-03-08, 11:08 AM

Starsinger

2008-03-08, 11:17 AM

I believe it was Spalding Gray who said, "Everything is contingent, and there is also chaos." Which paraphrased means: "**** happens."

Sometimes an unlucky die roll is an unlucky die roll. It's not the game singling you out. Them's the breaks. And rolling a 1 is statistically the same as rolling a 20. I wouldn't call that arbitrary.

Yes, **** happens. But this is a game. Character death should mean something, dying because you did something stupid? Good! Dying because you're tangling with a very plot relevant encounter, usually with a BBEG? Good! Dying due to luck because "**** happens"? Not good. It's not the game singling you out, but it doesn't make it mean anything. Who dies in a random encounter? Oh that's right Boromir did. And we all know that Boromir is the LotR character people aspire to be when they play D&D.

Indon

2008-03-08, 11:19 AM

Abstracting out statistical deviance doesn't make challenges less risky, it makes the risks more consistent.
Consistency is very much the opposite of risk - a 'more consistent' risk is a less significant risk.

The problem with randomness is that it doesn't make things more "risky" it just makes them more likely to screw you for no reason. It's completely ludicrous to have a system where your character can take 49HP of damage without blinking, but 50HP has a 5% chance of proving instantly fatal. It's inconsistent.

Massive damage is an optional variant in 3.5 D&D, and it's run much better in D20 modern (in which it is based off of Con)

Save or die spells are similarly problematic. Once you accept that high level characters are magically protected from being decapitated by swords or stuck through with arrows, it's silly to allow wizards to bypass all of that with a single spell.

You have a point, there - it's very game-exploitive to allow players access to prolific save-or-dies in a high health system. 3.5's response to that was, "Don't cheese out, munchkin!" while 4.0's response to it is, "Yeah, we just didn't put it in the game," while simultaneously making it an even _higher_ health game.

To make the game more risky, health should have dropped compared to damage scaling, and more capability to avoid being hit/damaged in the first place on the part of PC's and NPC's should have been added. That way, save-or-dies (though really, such abilities don't have to be instant kills - dropping to 0 would work about as well for risk factor) would have been less exploitive (so long as they were about as hard to land as dangerous standard attacks, that is). Instead, health was increased, damage variance was smoothed, and tactical options that could possibly bypass the health, reintroducing high risk, were removed or heavily restricted.

To demonstrate, I'll bring up the game Exalted. My players have no perfect defense charms between them - as such, combat is risky (I've further houserule the system to make combat less predictable, but that's another point) - one NPC who rolls high to hit and damage can theoretically severely hurt them, even a mortal.

So my players take measures to reduce their risks, such as splitting their dice actions and/or taking full dodges. The Dragon-blood relies heavily on his armor in many fights (because he's not very agile), and the Lunar relies on his prolific health and his Deadly Beastman Form for defense (combat is probably least risky for him, and he still splits his die pools).

Edit: Exalted has save-or-dies, too, though they're rare and generally limited to powerful sorcery.

Xefas

2008-03-08, 11:20 AM

Being a player who has done plenty of stupid things and caused his characters to die a couple times, I have never held the belief that "OMG! My character died! This game is not fun!"

It's not like there is a finite number of characters in the world. And if you are projecting so much of yourself into a character that you would be visibly upset that he is not the nigh-invulnerable behemoth you wish him to be, then maybe you need to look at yourself some more.

I disagree with the whole notion that "Dying means less fun for the players." What whiny preteens are the creators playing with that their players complain and whine about character death (no matter how reasonable).

It isn't a matter of dieing not being fun, at least not for me. It's that, if your character is dead, there is no potential to have fun.

"Alright, we're starting a new campaign. You wake up in a damp cave with a throbbing headache. <5 minutes later> The goblin crits, everyone is dead. Huh. Well, I guess the campaign is over."

"Alright, new campaign. Your Warforged have all just been activated and sent onto the wartorn battlefields of Eberron. <5 minutes later> Well, I rolled 00 on my % roll, the catapult manages to hit you. Everyone is dead. Huh. Well...new campaign?"

"Okies, this time you've been sent by the Demon Lord, Orcus to eradicate the followers of Hextor and plunge his nation into anarchy. <5 minutes later> Ah, that roll fails. The Slay Living spell kills you. You know what, this isn't getting us anywhere..."

Some could argue those deaths were stupid and arbitrary, and some could argue they just added to the danger. However, the one thing that is certain is that you just spent 8 hours at a D&D table, and no fun was had because everyone was dead/making new characters. It wasn't "bad" but it wasn't "fun", and that's what a game is for.

Matthew

2008-03-08, 11:21 AM

Because sometimes death isn't well... fair. When you die because that fortitude save, which you can only fail if you rolled a natural 1, fails because you rolled a natural 1? That's not exactly fun. When you die in a random encounter because those goblin skirmishers roll crit after crit? That's not exactly fun. When you die because your DM likes to use older edition rules where spells kill you for using them? That's not exactly fun.

Being upset because a character you spent time developing and playing dies? That's not exactly fun, but it's entirely reasonable. There's nothing ridiculous about it.

It depends on the purpose of the game and what you understand to be the risks in playing it. D&D isn't like chess, where there is no random chance, it's a game that's based on probabilities. When you roll up a character you agree to the possibility that a random die roll may kill that character. Not everybody likes that style of play and plenty of people complain about it and seek to minimise the risks, but that's the core of D&D. You have to be both lucky and clever to survive.

For what it's worth, my experience is that it doesn't matter how much time you put into creating the character, that's just an excuse for being pissed off when he dies. The way I see it, annoyance at character death is the result of not recognising that death is often random in D&D because you play the game using dice. Of course, it's also desirable for a player to have an emotional response to the death of a character, as his death then means something more than the removal of a game piece.

Callos_DeTerran

2008-03-08, 11:24 AM

Because sometimes death isn't well... fair. When you die because that fortitude save, which you can only fail if you rolled a natural 1, fails because you rolled a natural 1? That's not exactly fun. When you die in a random encounter because those goblin skirmishers roll crit after crit? That's not exactly fun. When you die because your DM likes to use older edition rules where spells kill you for using them? That's not exactly fun.

Being upset because a character you spent time developing and playing dies? That's not exactly fun, but it's entirely reasonable. There's nothing ridiculous about it.

Course there is...even from an IC perspective your character knew what they signed on for when they began the adventuring life. It's the type of thing to consider when developing your character...they could DIE in the next room, how do they cope with that? Even if it's just by random luck, I'm never upset or dismayed when a character dies. Hell, mine usually refuse to come back to life. Random chance of it happening just makes it more exciting because they (and by extension I) never know when it might happen.

In other words just because you spend time doesn't mean you can't use death as another interesting way to develop your character. From what I see most people are more upset they get temporarily cut out of a game rather then because their character died.

Indon

2008-03-08, 12:16 PM

Some could argue those deaths were stupid and arbitrary, and some could argue they just added to the danger. However, the one thing that is certain is that you just spent 8 hours at a D&D table, and no fun was had because everyone was dead/making new characters. It wasn't "bad" but it wasn't "fun", and that's what a game is for.

Dude.

"We had three freak TPK's in 15 minutes of play," is an absolutely awesome story that you will be laughing about with your friends for decades. And the best part is, none of you even needed to be drunk.

Artanis

2008-03-08, 12:25 PM

Consistency is very much the opposite of risk - a 'more consistent' risk is a less significant risk.
Maybe if you face the same difficulty level. However, making things more consistent allows them to make encounters more challenging on both a tactical level and a plain ol' "who has the most firepower?" level.

When an enemy can one-shot you with a lucky roll, the encounter designer (whether WotC or the DM) has to limit the other options the enemy has. When the PCs face a smart, numerous, powerful enemy that can ALSO one-shot them on a lucky roll, the PCs are pretty much f***ed.

So really, the options are on a spectrum with "stupid but lucky" on one end and "smart but consistent" on the other end. Me, I'll take a competent, consistent enemy any day over a lucky moron.

Jerthanis

2008-03-08, 04:04 PM

... you can run 20 rounds in a bit more than an hour, in 4th edition? *jaw drops* That's .. a round every three minutes?!

Yeah... that's the biggest thing I want to run/playtest 4th ed D&D for, these continuous claims of hugely long combats taking an hour or so at most.

I just ran a Star Wars: Saga Edition game last night which was supposed to include an old school dungeon-crawl to help commemorate Gygax's passing, but after the five round combat with an easy encounter group took a little over an hour, I decided to call the game off, because we were all getting tired, and the six other encounters before they would get to the surface again would've possibly taken just as long each.

And this is in a system that is popularly believed to be a "bridge" system between 3.5 and 4th edition D&D. If something has changed in the system to make it 4 times as fast, what could it possibly be? Are people who blog about the game just all playing with the fastest deciders/rollers in the world?

But it does hearten me to know that 4th ed won't be absolutely death-free. When 1st level characters need Dragons to put them down (as evidenced by the fight in the play reports we've seen). Knowing how powerful 3.5 dragons are, and how they're level 8 minimum for the weakest Adult Dragons, with hatchling dragons in the level 2-3 area, that was a little disturbing. If you're fighting Dragons at level 1, what are you fighting at level 17 that can take down a dozen dragons with ease?

Indon

2008-03-08, 04:13 PM

Maybe if you face the same difficulty level. However, making things more consistent allows them to make encounters more challenging on both a tactical level and a plain ol' "who has the most firepower?" level.

I disagree. Kobolds could be plenty smart back when critical hits did double damage, nothing about the new system allows them to be any more intelligent now... but there's still a lower element of risk in fighting them.

When an enemy can one-shot you with a lucky roll, the encounter designer (whether WotC or the DM) has to limit the other options the enemy has.
They have to limit the other options the enemy has in order to reduce the risk of combat, yes. This is because that measure introduces risk in combat. A DM doesn't have to limit how dangerous their opponents could be unless he actively wants the PC's to have a minimal chance of death in combat.

When the PCs face a smart, numerous, powerful enemy that can ALSO one-shot them on a lucky roll, the PCs are pretty much f***ed.

Unless they reduce their vulnerability to being one-shotted with some form of strategy or tactic.

So really, the options are on a spectrum with "stupid but lucky" on one end and "smart but consistent" on the other end. Me, I'll take a competent, consistent enemy any day over a lucky moron.

As my above points should illustrate, I feel your argument does not remotely hold.

Xefas

2008-03-08, 04:23 PM

Dude.

"We had three freak TPK's in 15 minutes of play," is an absolutely awesome story that you will be laughing about with your friends for decades. And the best part is, none of you even needed to be drunk.

That's the not the point! :smallredface:

You were suppose to take the spirit/nature of the post itself rather than the literal meaning. Death doesn't directly add or subtract fun; all it does is create a impediment that forces you to waste time before you can have fun again.

To make an analogy, D&D is the best damn movie you've ever seen. Deaths are hour-long Viagra commercials that are shoved between segments of that movie. A good DM is like a TiVo that lets you skip those commercials.

Why would you want to watch Viagra commercials instead of the best movie of all time?! Why?! Do you prefer 70 year old men making erection euphemisms to hot Luke on Vader lightsaber action?! Why?!

Narco

2008-03-08, 04:28 PM

Who dies in a random encounter? Oh that's right Boromir did. And we all know that Boromir is the LotR character people aspire to be when they play D&D.

It's funny that you bring up Boromir in this context because I would use his death to argue the opposite point. Dying can be great for the story and for the character. Yeah Boromir did die in a random encounter. He also Killed dozens and dozens of Orcs and was found with half a dozen arrows stuck in him. He went out in a blaze of glory defending his friends and redeeming himself after falling to the temptation of the Ring. You may think of that as a foolish ignoble death but that sounds to me like one of the best ways for a character to die. Doing everything he could, fighting through grievous injury, until he was finally overcome. That sounds like something the bards would sing songs about to me.

Indon

2008-03-08, 04:46 PM

Death doesn't directly add or subtract fun; all it does is create a impediment that forces you to waste time before you can have fun again.

I'd say a D&D session which produces an awesome anecdote has an element of fun which you are not tracking. The spirit of what that sort of event represents very much was my point.

Yeah Boromir did die in a random encounter. He also Killed dozens and dozens of Orcs and was found with half a dozen arrows stuck in him.

His death was good for the story because he died in a random encounter which was treated as important, because combat is inherently lethal. And the characters of LotR were better at RP'ing than you or I.

caith

2008-03-08, 04:56 PM

A few things:

Our game has a "no death on first night" rule. If you're new(and this applies to first night ofa new campaign) you cannot die. The point is, DM's are allowed to(and supposed to) fudge. Alot. And PCs are supposed to die, maybe not alot, but it depends.

Also, regarding the Boromir situation. I think the current movement to make PnP more "movie like" or more "exciting" is just unneccesary. Every combat is not going to be an epic fight scene, it would just get really played out(and makes combat take forever). Every death is not going to be a great sacrifice for the greater good. Sometimes you just fall off a bridge, or slip on some ice and crack your head. For me, combat is a tactical breather from the storytelling, and sometimes helps to move the story along and assist the story in it's telling. And obviously, what most people miss, is a chance to add an exciting risk to the game. Every time you enter combat, you have a chance of dieing. Without that, it will become very boring, very fast. If you're having problems with the combat system taking away from your "roleplaying", perhaps i might suggest a more combat oriented game, like 40k?

I'd say a D&D session which produces an awesome anecdote has an element of fun which you are not tracking. The spirit of what that sort of event represents very much was my point.

I have a great example of this: I somehow got my hands on a set of nuclear warheads, but my character didn't really know what they were, only that they would help him defeat his enemies. So he started pressing buttons and nuked an entire planet, killing himself and the entire party(the campaign got sidetracked beyond repair, so everyone was kind of ok with it). A story I will tell for years to come.

skywalker

2008-03-08, 05:32 PM

Dude.

"We had three freak TPK's in 15 minutes of play," is an absolutely awesome story that you will be laughing about with your friends for decades. And the best part is, none of you even needed to be drunk.

Q.

F.

T.

A couple thoughts:

1. Boromir did NOT die in a random encounter. That was very plot significant, and one of the most touching parts of that film series. I've just had a revelation, as I type this: Character death has the potential to turn random encounters into plot significant events! I have never considered this before. Cool.

2. Some of my greatest gaming stories come from character death that was random. Character deaths in plot significant, important encounters are actually the exception, rather than the rule. We also almost never talk about those. The ones we talk about are, "Hey, remember that time you could roll anything but a one on that d20, and guess what you rolled..."

Drakron

2008-03-08, 05:58 PM

There is a thing called "alright, THAT did not happen" and we replay the fight.

I think the issue is being treated as a kid, this 4th Ed. seem to be "The Johnson and Johnson edition" down to dices made of Nerf (so they do not accidentally hurt anyone) and I am sorry, I am a adult and even if might lose my temper by losing at least I will be ashamed of that, THIS is treating me as I am a children.

Artanis

2008-03-08, 06:20 PM

Roog

2008-03-08, 06:30 PM

Course there is...even from an IC perspective your character knew what they signed on for when they began the adventuring life. It's the type of thing to consider when developing your character...they could DIE in the next room, how do they cope with that? Even if it's just by random luck, I'm never upset or dismayed when a character dies. Hell, mine usually refuse to come back to life. Random chance of it happening just makes it more exciting because they (and by extension I) never know when it might happen.

The GM wants to challange the players.

If the GM gives the players too much of a challange, then they will most likely die.

As a GM would you prefer to challange the players luck, or challage their tactics?

Yakk

2008-03-08, 06:52 PM

Drakron

2008-03-08, 08:06 PM

Letting you face enemies with actual intelligence, as opposed to shmucks whose threat comes entirely from one-shot crits, is treating you like a child?

Cannon fodder was always part of the system.

Besides that is not my complain but the fear of "never allowing the PCs to die" that is the opposite of what you are saying, the risk of TPK should always exist.

Rutee

2008-03-08, 08:14 PM

Cannon fodder was always part of the system.

Besides that is not my complain but the fear of "never allowing the PCs to die" that is the opposite of what you are saying, the risk of TPK should always exist.

TPKing to Cannon Fodder should pretty much never happen, barring intense stupidity the likes of which have never been heard of.

Xefas

2008-03-08, 08:52 PM

TPKing to Cannon Fodder should pretty much never happen, barring intense stupidity the likes of which have never been heard of.

Once, while I had my players fighting off Lemures and other minor Devils gladiator-style in a big coliseum in Dis, one of them took off their clothes, mooned Dispater, and then stabbed one of his harem erinyes to death.

They were being paid and would have been sent back to the Prime immediately in like 2 minutes. They knew this.

The person playing threw a tantrum about his character being turned into paste. We don't play with him anymore.

At least now its been "heard of"...

Indon

2008-03-09, 01:43 AM

It would be a tough fight. But I doubt you'd have entire armies of convention goers dieing, with the rare party having 1 person barely surviving.

The ogres are a tough fight because they can concievably kill someone.

The dragon was a tough fight because it outmatched the party (over-CR ambush when previously weakened).

Risk also works the other way around - a combat system with more risk would see more PC parties overcoming the odds because randomness works out in their favor when they're outmatched. Earlier D&D editions would have seen more tables come out of a combat like that dragon combat alive, talking about how lucky they were with their confirmed triple-20 instant kills on the dragon and such.

Ultimately, though, the CR-equivalent in 4'th edition is much more robust. Combat being more predictable is a part of that, but the biggest part is that combat options have been reduced in such a way that combat effectiveness is _way_ easier to describe in a single metric.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-09, 08:49 AM

Consistency is very much the opposite of risk - a 'more consistent' risk is a less significant risk.

Which carries a greater risk, jumping out an aeroplane without a parachute, or crossing the road?

They can both get you killed, but one gets you killed more consistently.

To put it another way, what carries a greater risk, crossing the road, or getting into a fist fight? You might *die* crossing the road, but if you don't, you probably won't get hurt. On the other hand you'll almost certainly survive a fist fight, but you're almost certain to come out with a few cuts and bruises.

Massive damage is an optional variant in 3.5 D&D, and it's run much better in D20 modern (in which it is based off of Con)

It's actually not optional in 3.5 - it's a common mistake to assume it is.

You have a point, there - it's very game-exploitive to allow players access to prolific save-or-dies in a high health system. 3.5's response to that was, "Don't cheese out, munchkin!" while 4.0's response to it is, "Yeah, we just didn't put it in the game," while simultaneously making it an even _higher_ health game.

To me, it's all about design consistency.

If you're including Hit Points in the first place, it's because you want to allow your PCs to wade into situations that would get a real person killed, and not have them worry about dying.

To make the game more risky, health should have dropped compared to damage scaling, and more capability to avoid being hit/damaged in the first place on the part of PC's and NPC's should have been added. That way, save-or-dies (though really, such abilities don't have to be instant kills - dropping to 0 would work about as well for risk factor) would have been less exploitive (so long as they were about as hard to land as dangerous standard attacks, that is). Instead, health was increased, damage variance was smoothed, and tactical options that could possibly bypass the health, reintroducing high risk, were removed or heavily restricted.

All of which allows you to put the PCs into more dangerous encounters. And that's sort of the point.

The problem with high-variance systems is that you have a lot of encounters that probably won't hurt the players at all but might cause a TPK. If you put a first level party up against a single Orc, what usually happens is that they either kill it in one round completely unharmed or it totally mauls them. I'd much rather have something more even, where an encounter will definitely hurt the PCs and might kill them, instead of one where the PCs will either escape unharmed or get TPKed.

To demonstrate, I'll bring up the game Exalted. My players have no perfect defense charms between them - as such, combat is risky (I've further houserule the system to make combat less predictable, but that's another point) - one NPC who rolls high to hit and damage can theoretically severely hurt them, even a mortal.

So my players take measures to reduce their risks, such as splitting their dice actions and/or taking full dodges. The Dragon-blood relies heavily on his armor in many fights (because he's not very agile), and the Lunar relies on his prolific health and his Deadly Beastman Form for defense (combat is probably least risky for him, and he still splits his die pools).

Edit: Exalted has save-or-dies, too, though they're rare and generally limited to powerful sorcery.

The thing is, though, Exalted is a very different game to D&D. D&D is designed on the assumption that your PCs are going to get in four combats a day. Exalted is based on the assumption that your PCs might get into a fight or might not. It's a completely different game based on completely different assumptions.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-09, 08:55 AM

Dude.

"We had three freak TPK's in 15 minutes of play," is an absolutely awesome story that you will be laughing about with your friends for decades. And the best part is, none of you even needed to be drunk.

I think this is one of those fundamental differences in attitude. "We had three freak TPKs in 15 minutes of play" is the kind of thing that would make me never want to use that system again. In fact, any freak TPK would put me off using most systems.

When I play RPGs, I have investment in my character, and I expect everybody else to have investment in their character, otherwise you're just moving playing pieces around a board. A TPK, as far as I'm concerned, is game over. That's it, thanks for playing, time to start a new campaign.

Prophaniti

2008-03-09, 09:46 AM

Everyone has their own way of playing and consequently their own view on character death. It should be noted, however, that despite what some people have inferred, whether the DM runs the monsters intelligently is not reliant on the system.

Personally, I like a system with some inherent risk to combat. I even like ridiculous crits here and there. People die when you stick sharp metal things in them. I don't gloss over that for the monsters they kill or the NPCs in the fight, and I don't feel the need to gloss over that for the PCs. Character death is a very real and tangible risk in our campaigns, whether I'm the DM or someone else in the group is. That's just the way we like to play.

You might gather from this that character death happens often in our games, but that's not the case. It's common enough that most of us keep an idea for our next character on the back burner, but to date we have not had a TKP in any of our adventures. As a DM, you get a feel for what the party can handle that the charts in the DMG don't give you. I've designed plenty of encounters that are higher than the suggested CR for the group, often I've thought about half-way through the fight, 'Maybe this WAS too tough for them...' But they always come through, one way or another. Lucky bastards...

Anyway, my group has already decided we are not upgrading to 4E, at least not right away and not completely. We're just going to glean the rules changes that we like and incorporate them into what we're already playing, so character death will likely be the same for us. Which is the way we like it.

Yakk

2008-03-09, 11:19 AM

The ogres are a tough fight because they can concievably kill someone.

The dragon was a tough fight because it outmatched the party (over-CR ambush when previously weakened).

2 ogres = Encounter Level 5 = 3 levels above a party of level 2 characters.
1 dragon = Encounter Level 4 = 3 levels above a party of level 1 characters.

I just added +1 level to reflect the fact that 4e 1st level characters don't have the "we more than double our HP in 2 levels" effect that 3e had.

People seem to be concentrating on the "omg a dragon", when in reality it is a "omg, a 4th level encounter at level 1". Fighting targets 3 levels above your party isn't that rare in 3e. 4e just happens to have the mechanics to build a 4th level dragon.

Risk also works the other way around - a combat system with more risk would see more PC parties overcoming the odds because randomness works out in their favor when they're outmatched. Earlier D&D editions would have seen more tables come out of a combat like that dragon combat alive, talking about how lucky they were with their confirmed triple-20 instant kills on the dragon and such.

Do you know this? I suppose with more HP -- but the problem is, in earlier editions:
The Dragon Breathes fire, everyone dies. (even if they make their save)
is a distinct possibility if we are talking level 1 characters (because of the "HP ramp up really fast at low levels problem").

Ultimately, though, the CR-equivalent in 4'th edition is much more robust. Combat being more predictable is a part of that, but the biggest part is that combat options have been reduced in such a way that combat effectiveness is _way_ easier to describe in a single metric.

Combat options have been reduced in 4e? Whose character sheet are you looking at?

Most characters at level 1 have a good 4 to 5 different powers to pick between. In 2e, nobody had that many options. In 3e, the only class that had that many options was the cleric or wizard.

DraPrime

2008-03-09, 11:36 AM

It's actually not optional in 3.5 - it's a common mistake to assume it is.

Everything is optional in Dnd. The DM can remove anything. If the DM say "no critical hits" then there's no critical hits, even if they are supposed to be mandatory. What's optional and what isn't is decided by the DM.

MeklorIlavator

2008-03-09, 12:11 PM

Everything is optional in Dnd. The DM can remove anything. If the DM say "no critical hits" then there's no critical hits, even if they are supposed to be mandatory. What's optional and what isn't is decided by the DM.

Yes, that is true, but if your Dm said that you were going to play vanilla DnD 3.5, would you assume that you were going to be using critical hits? Or that wizards use Int as their main stat? It's kinda like in a computer game where you can go into the options menu and turn choices on or off. Sure, everything there is optional, but most games have a couple things already selected there. In DnD, those preselected choices are known as the "core rules", and guide to what happens when someone does something.

nagora

2008-03-09, 12:32 PM

Because sometimes death isn't well... fair. When you die because that fortitude save, which you can only fail if you rolled a natural 1, fails because you rolled a natural 1? That's not exactly fun. When you die in a random encounter because those goblin skirmishers roll crit after crit? That's not exactly fun. When you die because your DM likes to use older edition rules where spells kill you for using them? That's not exactly fun.

Being upset because a character you spent time developing and playing dies? That's not exactly fun, but it's entirely reasonable. There's nothing ridiculous about it.

What a whine!

Why did your character even leave the house?! That sword looks awful pointy - better put a cork on it and maybe get the police to put some black and yellow tape around it! Can't be too careful.

Characters exist to face death and overcome the odds. To do this they have a battery of special abilities, HP, saving throws, magic spells, magic armour, magic weapons. If you can't take the fact that sometimes you are going to roll a 1 then you might as well give up, you're never going to play a heroic character.

Lord Nelson once jumped from the bridge of his ship down and through the (closed) window of the enemy ship's captain's cabin and ended the battle by taking the very surprised captain hostage. IN REAL LIFE!

He could easily have missed and any number of things could have gone wrong. If you can't face taking a risk with a character who's just a piece of paper then I don't think adventure games are really for you.

Indon

2008-03-09, 12:42 PM

Which carries a greater risk, jumping out an aeroplane without a parachute, or crossing the road?

They can both get you killed, but one gets you killed more consistently.

To put it another way, what carries a greater risk, crossing the road, or getting into a fist fight? You might *die* crossing the road, but if you don't, you probably won't get hurt. On the other hand you'll almost certainly survive a fist fight, but you're almost certain to come out with a few cuts and bruises.
Well, this is very important if we're comparing Frogger with Battletoads. But in 4.0 terms, your analogy roughly correlates to:

Jumping out of a plane with no parachute = high-CR encounter in a low-variance system. Practically always fatal.
Crossing the road = standard-CR encounter in a high-variance system... except the analogy fails here, because players can and do take damage in earlier versions of D&D. A standard-CR encounter in a high-variance system can kill you, can leave you unscathed, but will more often just leave you injured.
Fist fight = also a standard-CR encounter in a high-variance system. People can and do die from injuries sustained in unregulated unarmed combat - it's a more accurate analogy than crossing the road, in fact.

A standard-CR encounter in a low-variance system is a boxing match. One has a negligable chance of killing you. For you to die of boxing-related injuries, you need to either face the reincarnated form of Mohammed Ali fused, dragonball-Z style with Mike Tyson (in which case, you're relegated to the position your monsters are usually in - combat fodder with a negligable chance of victory - see 'jumping out of a plane without parachute'), or you need to engage in consecutive boxing matches until injuries accumulate, cause complications, and those kill you.

It's actually not optional in 3.5 - it's a common mistake to assume it is.

Hmm. What do you know. I'll file it alongside 'monks aren't proficient with unarmed attacks'.

To me, it's all about design consistency.

If you're including Hit Points in the first place, it's because you want to allow your PCs to wade into situations that would get a real person killed, and not have them worry about dying.
Or because you want an easy damage abstraction system. But not every way to disable an opponent involves damage, which is why previous versions of D&D had a system abstracted to deal with that - saves.

All of which allows you to put the PCs into more dangerous encounters. And that's sort of the point.

The problem with high-variance systems is that you have a lot of encounters that probably won't hurt the players at all but might cause a TPK. If you put a first level party up against a single Orc, what usually happens is that they either kill it in one round completely unharmed or it totally mauls them. I'd much rather have something more even, where an encounter will definitely hurt the PCs and might kill them, instead of one where the PCs will either escape unharmed or get TPKed.
The problem with this idea is that the players know combat has no danger unless you decide to say, "Okay, I'm going to field an encounter way beyond the players' abilities, and it'll kill them." That's not at all using more dangerous encounters. That's needing to use encounters designed by the system to TPK your party to elicit more than yawning from them.

If you don't field such encounters, your players are going to figure it out - the system can't kill their characters, only you can, when you intentionally push their capabilities further than the book tells you their party can manage.

The thing is, though, Exalted is a very different game to D&D. D&D is designed on the assumption that your PCs are going to get in four combats a day. Exalted is based on the assumption that your PCs might get into a fight or might not. It's a completely different game based on completely different assumptions.

It seems to me that you're saying D&D is a game designed to have boring combat, and that this makes it okay. But this probably has more to do with your next point here -

I think this is one of those fundamental differences in attitude.

Yeah, that's definitely something I can agree with. I guess Wizards decided that people of your opinion outnumber people of mine, eh.

2 ogres = Encounter Level 5 = 3 levels above a party of level 2 characters.
1 dragon = Encounter Level 4 = 3 levels above a party of level 1 characters.

I just added +1 level to reflect the fact that 4e 1st level characters don't have the "we more than double our HP in 2 levels" effect that 3e had.

People seem to be concentrating on the "omg a dragon", when in reality it is a "omg, a 4th level encounter at level 1". Fighting targets 3 levels above your party isn't that rare in 3e. 4e just happens to have the mechanics to build a 4th level dragon.
Two ogres would be dangerous and draining on a fresh level 2 party, and highly lethal against a drained and tired level 2 party, in 3'rd edition.

This dragon would be draining on resources, but not dangerous, to a level 1 4'th edition party with their per-day use abilities. The Wizard would use his Sleep spell, the strikers and defenders would use their big abilities, and the healer would be standing people right back up if they fell. The chances of someone dying would be comparable to, well, a group of level 1 characters fighting that single orc, at best.

And obviously, against a tired party who has used some of their abilities, the dragon is a TPK.

Do you know this? I suppose with more HP -- but the problem is, in earlier editions:
The Dragon Breathes fire, everyone dies. (even if they make their save)
is a distinct possibility if we are talking level 1 characters (because of the "HP ramp up really fast at low levels problem").
Coincidentally, 3.x has no way to build a CR 4 encounter with a dragon, and very few ways to cause AoE damage. Damage ramps up fast at low-levels, too.

Combat options have been reduced in 4e? Whose character sheet are you looking at?
The reason the CR system doesn't work in 3.x D&D is because players have too many options - they can easily work outside of the narrow frame the CR system tries to predict. In 4'th edition, that frame hasn't grown any, but players sure can't leave it anymore... well, assuming Wizards makes good on its' promise that CR will work this edition. If they don't, then my argument may well be moot.

Though you have a point - CR is not very inaccurate in 3.x at level 1.

nagora

2008-03-09, 01:15 PM

Do you know this? I suppose with more HP -- but the problem is, in earlier editions:
The Dragon Breathes fire, everyone dies. (even if they make their save)
is a distinct possibility if we are talking level 1 characters (because of the "HP ramp up really fast at low levels problem").

Why is this a problem?

MeklorIlavator

2008-03-09, 02:12 PM

Why is this a problem?
Well, if its supposed to be a reasonable challenge for the party, having the ability to one shot all of them no matter if they make a save or not could likely be construed as a design problem.

GoC

2008-03-09, 02:21 PM

I think a combat orientated game should be like nethack and a non-combat orientated one should be like 4e.

EvilElitest

2008-03-09, 10:43 PM

Yakk

2008-03-10, 03:43 AM

Coincidentally, 3.x has no way to build a CR 4 encounter with a dragon, and very few ways to cause AoE damage. Damage ramps up fast at low-levels, too.

There are plenty of CR 4 dragons? I don't understand.

Two ogres would be dangerous and draining on a fresh level 2 party, and highly lethal against a drained and tired level 2 party, in 3'rd edition.

This dragon would be draining on resources, but not dangerous, to a level 1 4'th edition party with their per-day use abilities. The Wizard would use his Sleep spell, the strikers and defenders would use their big abilities, and the healer would be standing people right back up if they fell. The chances of someone dying would be comparable to, well, a group of level 1 characters fighting that single orc, at best.

Really? The per-day abilities aren't that powerful.

Sleep would be shrugged off relatively quickly, compared to the length of the fight, and it would be unlikely to land against the dragon's will save.

Remember: color spray. Level 1 spell with a 80% chance to simply take out 1 of the 2 ogres, and a 30% chance to take out both, in a single spell.

The danger would be that the ogres would kill the party before the party took out the ogres.

The reason the CR system doesn't work in 3.x D&D is because players have too many options - they can easily work outside of the narrow frame the CR system tries to predict. In 4'th edition, that frame hasn't grown any, but players sure can't leave it anymore... well, assuming Wizards makes good on its' promise that CR will work this edition. If they don't, then my argument may well be moot.

Though you have a point - CR is not very inaccurate in 3.x at level 1.

You mean build options, or options during the fight?

CR is not very accurate in 3.x period.

Why is this a problem?

"X breathes fire, everyone dies"? Because it comes from the rapid power curve that only exists in the first few levels of 3.5e due to HP inflation.

In 4e, there is a reduction of the HP inflation effect over the first few levels. So ... to reflect this, I compared level 2 characters in 3.5e against a CR 5 encounter, instead of level 1 characters in 4e against a level 4 solo monster.

pasko77

2008-03-10, 04:30 AM

Characters are completely invincible in 4e and can never be killed. Monster attacks only give you puppies, kittens and rainbows.

Cool, i always liked Rainbow Island.
Seriously, isn't it better to wait for the rulebook?

Farmer42

2008-03-10, 04:34 AM

Believe it or not, nerf dice hurt. I have a d20, and I can take out small children and drunks from across the room. Not that I'd ever abuse my cousins in such a way...but I'd totally abuse my cousins in such a way.

Starsinger

2008-03-10, 06:03 AM

If their is no risk or fear of death, why be afraid in the first place?
from
EE

What a whine!

Are you two honestly going to tell me, that you have fun dying to a lucky placed gobin's arrow at level 5? That you enjoy being the one who has to sit out the next few hours while the rest of the PCs haul your corpse back to town and then hunt for the material component for a resurrection or a raise dead? Sitting on the bench and only getting to play for maybe a few minutes might be fun in sports (although I imagine its not terribly fun then), but this is a pen and paper game, there is no real reason to be on the bench unless you did something to deserve it.

1. Boromir did NOT die in a random encounter. That was very plot significant, and one of the most touching parts of that film series. I've just had a revelation, as I type this: Character death has the potential to turn random encounters into plot significant events! I have never considered this before. Cool.

The DM obviously felt bad for Boromir, dying to a bunch of mooks which weren't really a challange to the party, so he made it into a plot important event out of sympathy.

Edit: Random encounters should have the illusion of lethality, without actually being lethal. Now admittedly, this requires one of those legendary "good dms" sort of like the ones required for 1st edition to work perfectly. :smalltongue:

Kioran

2008-03-10, 07:28 AM

TPKing to Cannon Fodder should pretty much never happen, barring intense stupidity the likes of which have never been heard of.

Gundam/Escaflowne Fallacious arms race. Why have combat or train units if they´re not actually threatening? Why build generic mookomechs/train Infantry if all they´ll ever do and have ever done is getting squished? Obviously, you´re not getting your moneys worth, so why do this units till get trained and fielded in most series/Anime?
Same with combat. If it doesn´t even have a chance of killing a character, the party, or being significantly dangerous, it´s not worth the time necessary to resolve a combat encounter, simple as that. There needs to be some kind of a Significance/time ratio, and blowing through mooks which never enve threatened you in the first place isn´t significant in the least.

Nobody would spend money on something that doesn´t do anything. Nobody waste time on a meaningless encounter. Simple as that. And that means that moronic little Kobold must pose at least a threat if one is to be bothered with it all.

Starsinger

2008-03-10, 07:31 AM

Nobody would spend money on something that doesn´t do anything.

The large number of useless items that people spend money on like knick-knacks, drinky drinky birds, doilies, and lawn flamingos would certainly indicate otherwise.

Ralfarius

2008-03-10, 07:45 AM

The large number of useless items that people spend money on like knick-knacks, drinky drinky birds, doilies, and lawn flamingos would certainly indicate otherwise.
I love my dipper bird... Look! He's going for another drink!

Kioran

2008-03-10, 07:51 AM

The large number of useless items that people spend money on like knick-knacks, drinky drinky birds, doilies, and lawn flamingos would certainly indicate otherwise.

Some people seem to be delighted by items that actually seem useless to most other people. I refered to, for example, armaments. If I were some guy n the middle east or somewhere else in the world, I wouldn´t buy cast off 88mm Flaks, since they´d be entirely useless against any modern tank of airplane. I´d rather buy a single Roland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_%28air_defence%29) because it will do something at all against high-altitude stealth bombers, even if the chance is remote.
Same here. As a DM, I would at most, include, at most, one non-threatening encounter per session, because something that will never threaten the party is not worth even rolling dice. One could simply narrate it, so there´s no necessity to even make an encounter of it.

Starsinger

2008-03-10, 07:56 AM

I love my dipper bird... Look! He's going for another drink!

I didn't mean anything against them, I'm a fan of them myself. They do however, serve no purpose (Unless you're in Mt. Nevermind...)

Ralfarius

2008-03-10, 08:01 AM

I didn't mean anything against them, I'm a fan of them myself. They do however, serve no purpose (Unless you're in Mt. Nevermind...)
*Glove slap*

Good sir, you have besmirched the honour of my dipper bird. I must challenge you to a duel. Banana creme pies at dawn.

Indon

2008-03-10, 09:17 AM

There are plenty of CR 4 dragons? I don't understand.
You're right, I'd forgotten the younger categories. Their AoE attacks aren't at the hit-the-entire-party level at that point in time, though.

Really? The per-day abilities aren't that powerful.
They aren't, but the party has quite a few of them to burn at the start of the day.

You mean build options, or options during the fight?
Both, though more build options until at least mid levels.

CR is not very accurate in 3.x period.
I would not contest that. Though, I do feel it's _more_ inaccurate the higher level you get.

Tyger

2008-03-10, 09:22 AM

You're right, I'd forgotten the younger categories. Their AoE attacks aren't at the hit-the-entire-party level at that point in time, though.

If the dragon is played smart, and they ought to be, even at young age, they can easily set up cirucmstances where that 20-30 foot cone can easily get the entire party.

Indon

2008-03-10, 09:24 AM

If the dragon is played smart, and they ought to be, even at young age, they can easily set up cirucmstances where that 20-30 foot cone can easily get the entire party.

A very young Black Dragon might have 8 int, but it's still as young or younger than an adolescent human. I'm very doubtful that dragons that age would practice tactical combat.

OzRic_The_Unhinged

2008-03-10, 09:39 AM

Some years ago, my 16th Level fighter died of poison after falling 60 feet down a pit trap and onto some poisoned spikes, I rolled a natural one.

It wasn't fun him dying, no. And the shock to the party was immense and the sunsequent battles much harder...

But at least I felt there was some real danger, a tragedy had occurred and it was mine. I felt almost genuine grief and regret and anger that he should die in such a way. I rolled up his son who became a cleric and a healer because of the way his father had died.

The game was much better for it, whats the point of having invincible party members ? You end up with daft hollywood films type stuff where the heroes always survive. Wheres the excitement/fun in playing that ? And if your character does die in a stupid way, so what - the games I play are like that and I like them like that. To go back and pretend stuff hasn't happened or have a 'deus ex machina' moment spoils the game for me.

Whats the point in battling through to the evil chaps chamber at the top of the haunted tower, watching friends and PCs die before finally the couple of survivors defeat him in a cataclysmic fight, only to find a cache of resurrection spells and *pop* everyones alive again ?

ooops better stop there.....

Winterwind

2008-03-10, 09:52 AM

Prophaniti

2008-03-10, 10:00 AM

Are you two honestly going to tell me, that you have fun dying to a lucky placed gobin's arrow at level 5? That you enjoy being the one who has to sit out the next few hours while the rest of the PCs haul your corpse back to town and then hunt for the material component for a resurrection or a raise dead? Sitting on the bench and only getting to play for maybe a few minutes might be fun in sports (although I imagine its not terribly fun then), but this is a pen and paper game, there is no real reason to be on the bench unless you did something to deserve it.
I can honestly tell you I have fun when death is a risk. Not an 'illusory' risk, but a real one. Of course it sucks when a character dies in an ignominious way. It should suck. Of course it's boring to be 'on the bench' as you put it, while you roll up a new character. Bad things suck, that's pretty much the definition.

If, however, there is never a possibility of death, even a pathetic one, your basically playing DOOM in god-mode. Sure, it's enjoyable and bloody, but it's not challenging. Now, if you don't like to be challenged, fine. Play so that no one dies. Unless of course it's 'plot significant'. I want more from a game. I want risk. When I stand on the corpse of my advesary, I want to feel like I overcame something, which requires there be a very real possibility that I wouldn't have.

Indon

2008-03-10, 10:27 AM

Starsinger

2008-03-10, 10:27 AM

I can honestly tell you I have fun when death is a risk. Not an 'illusory' risk, but a real one. Of course it sucks when a character dies in an ignominious way. It should suck. Of course it's boring to be 'on the bench' as you put it, while you roll up a new character. Bad things suck, that's pretty much the definition.

If, however, there is never a possibility of death, even a pathetic one, your basically playing DOOM in god-mode. Sure, it's enjoyable and bloody, but it's not challenging. Now, if you don't like to be challenged, fine. Play so that no one dies. Unless of course it's 'plot significant'. I want more from a game. I want risk. When I stand on the corpse of my advesary, I want to feel like I overcame something, which requires there be a very real possibility that I wouldn't have.

When I have to sit out more than half a session because my character died, and I have to interrupt the DM occasionally to ask if the new character I'm rolling up is okay or not, and whether or not I get WBL on the new character, and what level to make the new character, and all the other questions you have when you make a character that isn't a carbon copy of the dead character with a different name, I want it to be because it mattered. Not because I got unlucky.

When it comes around to having the very awkward IC moment where you have to convince a group of people who put their lives on the line every day that they should trust this complete and utter stranger because my last character tripped over a banana peel and was eaten by the tarrasque due to the way the dice fell.

Shhalahr Windrider

2008-03-10, 10:31 AM

I didn't mean anything against them, I'm a fan of them myself. They do however, serve no purpose (Unless you're in Mt. Nevermind...)
What? Amusement isn't a purpose?

What purpose does D&D serve?

Starsinger

2008-03-10, 10:34 AM

What? Amusement isn't a purpose?

What purpose does D&D serve?

And mindless mooks that don't kill things aren't amusing? Given that the majority of evil people are portrayed as sadists (some more so than others) I have to imagine they have mooks that exist to be destroyed out of sadism.

Winterwind

2008-03-10, 10:41 AM

I like this concept, and would be interested to see it implemented in a game system - say, the ability to avoid random death through the expenditure of an action-point like thing.ShadowRun (3rd edition, anyway, don't know about 4th) and, to a lesser extent, MechWarrior RPG do feature such a mechanism.

ShadowRun has a so called "karma pool", which increases with experience, and which one can use to improve rolls, decrease negative modifiers, re-roll checks, and such (some of which uses decrease the number of points in the karma pool temporarily, some permanently) - or, if the character would die, one can permanently burn the entire karma pool and survive (after which you have no more points in the karma pool though, which hurts).

In MechWarrior, one of the attributes (comparable to ability scores in D&D) is "Edge", which is essentially the character's luck. Here, too, one can use up Edge points to improve critical rolls and try to, maybe, improve the roll to this critical point where you do not die anymore. Edge can regenerate, but not easily (interestingly, if you suffer from especially bad luck with your dice, this is one way to regenerate Edge - the gamemaster can reward you Edge points after a streak of especially bad luck, the in-game explanation for this being karmic equilibrium).

EDIT: Oh yeah, and then there is the thing the gamemaster in the freeform group I play in tends to do: Before the start of each session, he hands out cards with a word and two related, usually opposed words on it (like, I dunno, The Templar-Tranquility-Fanaticism; I think he got those cards from some obscure German RPG of sorts), one card for each player. Then, every player can play her/his card whenever (s)he chooses to and take over the role of the gamemaster for a moment, dictating what shall happen next (as opposed to what the gamemaster just declared would happen), albeit it has to be linked somehow with one of the terms on the card.

Yakk

2008-03-10, 11:09 AM

Indon

2008-03-10, 11:10 AM

ShadowRun (3rd edition, anyway, don't know about 4th) and, to a lesser extent, MechWarrior RPG do feature such a mechanism.

4'th edition Shadowrun now has a stat for Karma (I haven't played, since our would-be GM for the game moved from the city, but I did make a character who had high Karma), rather than it being part of the xp system.

Now my mind's going to be tinkering away at implementing a D&D Karma system...

Rockbird

2008-03-10, 11:29 AM

I like this concept, and would be interested to see it implemented in a game system - say, the ability to avoid random death through the expenditure of an action-point like thing.

In the system i play the most, Drakar och Demoner (A swedish game) there is a system called "Raud". When rolling your character you get a random amount from 0 to 10 (0 requiring you to be rather unlucky and 10 to have the exactly right choices plus a lot of luck with the dice). These points may be used for a few things: Reviving the dead with certain religious powers, (which is rare as all hell) cancelling an action you have made (for example if you say something reeeeally stupid to a king and you're going to be executed for it) or surviving a situation (Spending 1 raud guarantees survival. It does not, of course, guarantee that you won't be left battered, bruised and without all your equipment. Examples of suitable things to use this on include falling down a huge hole or getting hit by a landslide). It works rather well, and serves to migitate the games lethal combats (Exploding dice and hitpoints that never increase. Armor is really important too, but when a guy rolls 5 tens in a row with his dagger (daggers giving another damage roll on a ten (d10 damage)) and hits you for like 55 damage in your 15 hit point head, your helmet aint helping, son.)

CasESenSITItiVE

2008-03-10, 11:57 AM

I don't think the issue here is how often one dies, or how easy it is to die, i think the issue here is how justified a death.

For very needed fleshing out of my statement, i'll give an example. i'll compare two old video games (forgive me, i know comparing d&d to video games are somewhat taboo here): Kid Icarus and Ice Climbers. Both games are quite hard, taking a long time just to get past a level or two. the difference is why they are hard. Kid Icarus is full of monsters and difficult jumps, and health is not in ample supply. You often die from hitting those enemies, or from missing that one jump. Ice Climbers is a bit different. You'll find yourself dying because you've stuck through a platform as much as missing that jump.

In Kid Icarus, you likely died because you just weren't skilled enough (which will happen often), where as in Ice Climbers, no matter how good you are at the game, you'll die in certain places at no fault of your own.

I enjoy Kid Icarus more because my many deaths are more justified, and i expect the same from d&d

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-10, 01:55 PM

Or because you want an easy damage abstraction system. But not every way to disable an opponent involves damage, which is why previous versions of D&D had a system abstracted to deal with that - saves.

As far as I'm concerned "disabling an opponent" is doing damage by definition. Hit Points are so utterly abstract that pretty much the only thing they can concretely be said to represent is "ability to avoid becoming disabled".

Why should the thing that stops you getting blown up by fireballs, stabbed by swords, starving, dying of thirst, freezing to death, being consumed by fire, acid or lightning, being slain by negative or positive energy or otherwise in any way inconvenienced by anything suddenly fail to stop you getting put to sleep by an uppity mage?

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-10, 02:17 PM

I can honestly tell you I have fun when death is a risk. Not an 'illusory' risk, but a real one. Of course it sucks when a character dies in an ignominious way. It should suck. Of course it's boring to be 'on the bench' as you put it, while you roll up a new character. Bad things suck, that's pretty much the definition.

Ultimately, whether you like arbitrary PC deaths or not is a question of taste (I hate hate hate hate hate them, for all the reasons Starsinger outlines).

What I want to address, though, is this idea that getting your character killed "should suck".

Now this might be a miscommunication (it probably is), because the thing is that "sucks" can mean two very different things.

It can mean "causes a little mild frustration, which is ultimately all part of the game" - it sucks to get killed in D&D in the same way it sucks to lose a board game. It's a necessary part of the fun but obviously you'd rather have won.

Alternatively "sucks" can mean "is genuinely detrimental to your enjoyment of the game". That kind of "suck" should absolutely be removed from the game at all costs.

What Starsinger seems to be talking about is the latter kind of "suck". The fun-wrecking, immersion-breaking, plot-derailing, group-dynamic-shattering suck of having to introduce a new PC into a long running game in a way that actually makes sense in character.

Basically it's a preference thing. Personally, I consider my participation in an RPG to be all about the character I'm playing - they're what I bring to the table, they're my contribution to the game, getting rid of them annoys me, because it essentially eliminates my contribution to the game.

Indon

2008-03-10, 03:08 PM

As far as I'm concerned "disabling an opponent" is doing damage by definition. Hit Points are so utterly abstract that pretty much the only thing they can concretely be said to represent is "ability to avoid becoming disabled".

Why should the thing that stops you getting blown up by fireballs, stabbed by swords, starving, dying of thirst, freezing to death, being consumed by fire, acid or lightning, being slain by negative or positive energy or otherwise in any way inconvenienced by anything suddenly fail to stop you getting put to sleep by an uppity mage?

Hmm. That is somewhat of a novel concept of hit points - a nebulous, all-encompassing savior stat.

But there are some problems with that - let's take as an example the classic Charm Person spell. If hit points are used to resist that, obviously the spell won't be of much use, since if it succeeds, the target becomes unconscious. Ditto with most illusion magic.

Abilities that are supposedly distinct from health are another thing - while hit points might be a viable way to resist petrifying venom, is it an appropriate way to resist the Medusa's Gaze?

So that interpretation raises both simulation and gameplay problems, but still, it's very interesting to think about.

Fhaolan

2008-03-10, 04:30 PM

Hmm. That is somewhat of a novel concept of hit points - a nebulous, all-encompassing savior stat.

But there are some problems with that - let's take as an example the classic Charm Person spell. If hit points are used to resist that, obviously the spell won't be of much use, since if it succeeds, the target becomes unconscious. Ditto with most illusion magic.

Abilities that are supposedly distinct from health are another thing - while hit points might be a viable way to resist petrifying venom, is it an appropriate way to resist the Medusa's Gaze?

So that interpretation raises both simulation and gameplay problems, but still, it's very interesting to think about.

A person I know was working on their own system, and proposed four stats. Physical Resilience, Mental Resilience, Damage, and Luck. As you became more experienced, your Luck, Physical and Metal Resiliences would go up, but the Damage stat was basically static. You would deplete Physical Resilience or Mental Resilience depending on the nature of the attack, and as the player you could decide to deplete Luck instead of either. Once you were out of Mental Resilience you were dominated, subdued, charmed, whatever, and once you were out of Physical Resilience you started to take 'real' damage. Last I talked to him, he was messing about with a Social Resilience thing as well. Personally, it was getting a bit too messy for my liking.

Indon

2008-03-10, 04:41 PM

A person I know was working on their own system, and proposed four stats. Physical Resilience, Mental Resilience, Damage, and Luck. As you became more experienced, your Luck, Physical and Metal Resiliences would go up, but the Damage stat was basically static. You would deplete Physical Resilience or Mental Resilience depending on the nature of the attack, and as the player you could decide to deplete Luck instead of either. Once you were out of Mental Resilience you were dominated, subdued, charmed, whatever, and once you were out of Physical Resilience you started to take 'real' damage. Last I talked to him, he was messing about with a Social Resilience thing as well. Personally, it was getting a bit too messy for my liking.

Heh. I guess the 4'th edition D&D version of that would have four kinds of hit points representing the four defenses - Hit points (for AC), Endurance Points (for Fortitude), Stamina Points (for Reflex), and Willpower Points (for Will). You could just as easily make it apply to 3.x.

That's an interesting potential houserule.

Poison_Fish

2008-03-10, 04:58 PM

This is why in our games the gamemaster goes around and asks each player individually whether (s)he would like a "character shield", amounting to something happening to save the character from death in the last moment (though not necessarily from consequences).

Pretty much all of us choose having no character shield, for the very reasons the post right before mine so eloquently elaborated upon.

I do something similar. Before each game, I hand out small sheets to players and ask them to write their grim factor, 1-10.

What do the numbers mean? Not much physically, it's a general guide line. If you get 1, that means you don't want grim things to happen to you, 10% chance of bad things. 5 Is more your average grim factor, some bad things happen, some don't. 10 is full on, stray arrows seem to come your way, etc. It's not exactly luck based or statistically based, it's me making a notation of how grim the players want it.

Usually, all my players choose between 7 and 8, so there are character deaths in my average game. But that all depends, again, on who my players all.

Ralfarius

2008-03-10, 06:08 PM

The idea of giving your players the character-specific option for being at risk for very bad things leaves me somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, it's nice for the player to decide exactly how willing they are for untimely death or what have you to occur.

On the other, who wants to be the one guy who opts for kid gloves when one or more other people in the group are playing it 'hardcore'? Not to say this is necessarily a problem for any particular group that uses it, but I could see the potential for social pressure to not be seen as a player who can't handle the real deal with their characters.

Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea of character death, even to sketchy circumstances. I have been in the position of "remember that time the dragon's tail-slap crit you, then rolled a 20 on the confirmation, then another 20 on the insta-kill confirmation, then a 19 just for kicks?" Well, not me personally, but I was running the game. However, I could see myself not necessarily wanting a character to be gibbed at a low level and written off if I had a reasonably full progression already in mind for him.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to taste. I suppose there's nothing keeping DMs from making lower levels more randomly lethal in 4e any more than there was anything keeping them from making it less of a crapshoot in 3.x.

nagora

2008-03-11, 10:36 AM

Ultimately, whether you like arbitrary PC deaths or not is a question of taste (I hate hate hate hate hate them, for all the reasons Starsinger outlines).

If your character is in the wilderness or downa dungeon then no death is arbitary - you choose to go into danger; you can't then complain when it turned out that it really, really, was dangerous.

Alternatively "sucks" can mean "is genuinely detrimental to your enjoyment of the game". That kind of "suck" should absolutely be removed from the game at all costs.

Can't be done. If a player has your attitude that their PC should be coddled at all points short of the climatic battle (and probably then have a good chance of resurrection), the the problem is with the player, not the game. Essentially, it's the player's attitude that's making the game suck for them, and that's not the DM or the game designer's concern.

Basically it's a preference thing. Personally, I consider my participation in an RPG to be all about the character I'm playing - they're what I bring to the table, they're my contribution to the game, getting rid of them annoys me, because it essentially eliminates my contribution to the game.

Only if you let it.

Even dying mid-session is no real deal - get the DM to let you run some of the monsters, or roll up a new character (not so easy, I know, in post 1ed, but you could try). Also, try having another character ready - the son of your main character or their favourite henchman or whatever. Get the DM to let you haunt the other characters with advice/snarky comments until your death is avenged. If all else fails, sit and read over the PH for a while and make the other players tea/coffee/ninja burgers.

A "character shield" is, IMO, just sad.

It's the dead characters that make the surviving characters memorable.

Prophaniti

2008-03-11, 11:07 AM

Ah, at last! Someone who understands the purpose of challenges and doesn't subscribe to this kindergarten-style 'let's make sure everyone feels good' attitude. Thank you, nagora.

Indon

2008-03-11, 11:20 AM

Ah, at last! Someone who understands the purpose of challenges and doesn't subscribe to this kindergarten-style 'let's make sure everyone feels good' attitude. Thank you, nagora.

Well, I think everyone uses the DM kid-gloves at least sometimes. For example, when I'm introducing my players to a new system, I'm inclined to take steps to make sure they don't just keel over because they got unlucky - I want to make sure they understand how combat flows and how dangerous it can potentially be before I make use of that potential.

Winterwind

2008-03-11, 11:47 AM

Ah, at last! Someone who understands the purpose of challenges and doesn't subscribe to this kindergarten-style 'let's make sure everyone feels good' attitude. Thank you, nagora.So subscribing to the "my way is the only way" attitude you so aptly demonstrate here is better? :smallannoyed:

Some people want their roleplaying games potentially lethal (personally, most of the RPGs I play in feature a non-negligible likelihood of one-hit-kills through ordinary attacks, and usually kill or severly hurt characters within two or three hits), other people are rather about roleplaying the persona they created and couldn't care less about some dice rolls, fights or whatever, and certainly would not be pleased by the character they put so much investment into suddenly perishing by anything else than their own decision. Both are equally valid ways of playing, and while you may consider this kindergarten, I see no reason why I should not make the game fun for all of my friends (because that's what games are about, you see, fun, just in case you forgot) if I can as gamemaster.

Prophaniti

2008-03-11, 12:10 PM

Ok, ok, I deserved that. Sorry about the superiority tone. I haven't played with anyone who doesn't like lethal combat, so I guess it's kinda in there as the 'default' method.

Plus, I was projecting a bit from another conversation, and it really was good to see someone else who likes challenges and consequences in their games.

Winterwind

2008-03-11, 12:17 PM

Ok, ok, I deserved that. Sorry about the superiority tone. I haven't played with anyone who doesn't like lethal combat, so I guess it's kinda in there as the 'default' method.It's alright, and I'm sorry too if my words were too rash; it's just that your post touched on a pet peeve of mine (people forgetting that there are different, yet equal playstyles). :smallsmile:

And you are right, I haven't met many people who did not prefer lethal combat either. Amongst, I don't know, 20 players or so I think there was just one or two so far who explicitly preferred playing with a character shield.

Plus, it was a carry-over from another thread, and it really was good to see someone else who likes challenges and consequences in their games.Yeah, I suspected as much, after reading that other thread.

Dervag

2008-03-11, 12:52 PM

Consistency is very much the opposite of risk - a 'more consistent' risk is a less significant risk.To illustrate: care for a round of Russian Roulette?

The risk is easy to calculate- one in six. Every time. Consistent, reliable.

Now, sometimes you'll get shot and sometimes you won't, but the risk remains consistent. You know that if you play Russian Roulette, there's a pretty good chance you'll get killed. This probability approaches one if you play several times. You can't predict the outcome in one case, but the probability is itself very predictable.

Early Gygaxian D&D had a fair amount of Russian Roulette-some things killed characters at random, and whether or not this would happen was not predictable.

The game has been evolving away from that, towards scenarios where there is somewhat more chance of knowing whether or not you will survive a given kind of encounter. And I think that makes sense, because it allows characters to avoid death by planning and resourcefulness. There's not much you can do with Russian Roulette to improve your chances of survival, precisely because death is well and truly random. And that makes for somewhat less interesting strategy. On the other hand, people who enjoy risk for its own sake will most likely find it thrilling.

Cannon fodder was always part of the system.

Besides that is not my complain but the fear of "never allowing the PCs to die" that is the opposite of what you are saying, the risk of TPK should always exist.I really don't think there's any possibility of "never allowing the PCs to die." There may be the DM option of saying "OK, that encounter did not just happen that way." But there always is, and always was. If the DM decides that it's inconceivable for Sir Ulrich to stab himself to death with half a dozen fumbles while never striking or being struck by an enemy, then there's no obvious reason why the encounter shouldn't get a do-over.

What a whine!

Why did your character even leave the house?! That sword looks awful pointy - better put a cork on it and maybe get the police to put some black and yellow tape around it! Can't be too careful.

Characters exist to face death and overcome the odds. To do this they have a battery of special abilities, HP, saving throws, magic spells, magic armour, magic weapons. If you can't take the fact that sometimes you are going to roll a 1 then you might as well give up, you're never going to play a heroic character.

Lord Nelson once jumped from the bridge of his ship down and through the (closed) window of the enemy ship's captain's cabin and ended the battle by taking the very surprised captain hostage. IN REAL LIFE!

He could easily have missed and any number of things could have gone wrong. If you can't face taking a risk with a character who's just a piece of paper then I don't think adventure games are really for you.I do not think your sneer is justified. The point here is that some people don't like the idea of things that are "surefire successes unless they fail catastrophically and kill you." It feels more realistic to have a range of options. For example, if Nelson were a character in an RPG, you might have a range of possible successes and failures:

1)"Nelson jumps down through the skylight, surprises the captain, takes him hostage, and wins."
2)"Nelson jumps down through the skylight, surprises the captain, and takes him hostage, but his crew keeps fighting anyway so the battle is still on."
3)"Nelson jumps through the skylight, but the captain is waiting for him and there's an epic battle royale between them."
4)"Nelson jumps through the skylight, lands poorly, and has to wrestle the enemy captain's dagger away from his face because he's on the floor with a sprained ankle."
5)"Nelson misses the jump and lands on the deck of the enemy ship; if he doesn't act fast he'll be overrun by the enemy."
6)"Nelson misses the jump and falls to his death. Not to the deck of the enemy ship, just to his death."

Now, I think a good D&D game should mostly cover options 1 through 5, with a possibility of 6 if Nelson is really pushing it.. Setting things up so that the outcome will be, say, either 1 or 6 but nothing in between isn't a lot of fun for many people. Maybe you enjoy it, but it's not at all fair or appropriate to call other people whiners and insult them for not enjoying it.

Ah, at last! Someone who understands the purpose of challenges and doesn't subscribe to this kindergarten-style 'let's make sure everyone feels good' attitude. Thank you, nagora.That may be "the purpose of challenges," but it sure isn't "the purpose of games."

Games are supposed to be entertaining. That's the definition. If it isn't entertaining, you should not be playing it as a game.

Many people are not entertained by role-playing people who will always succeed brilliantly except when they fail catastrophically due to pure bad luck. These people generally do not mind failing catastrophically because their character did something stupid, or because they knowingly picked a fight with a powerful and competent enemy.

But if they're constantly being disintegrated by seemingly random traps, constantly losing characters to lucky arrows from goblin skirmishers, and so on, the game may lose some of its appeal.

Some people like getting to keep playing the same character for more than an hour or two at a time, thank you very much.

Matthew

2008-03-11, 01:16 PM

Early Gygaxian D&D had a fair amount of Russian Roulette-some things killed characters at random, and whether or not this would happen was not predictable.

I am not sure that's entirely accurate. I think that's a particular type of Gygaxian adventure, mainly the 'tournament style' adventures, such as Tomb of Horrors. I could be wrong, though, I'm not familiar with that many Gygaxian modules.

Artanis

2008-03-11, 02:10 PM

What I'm disliking about this argument is that many people seem to think that randomness is the only possible way for things to be risky, and they absolutely fail - or worse, refuse - to accept the possibility that there might be other ways to make things risky.

You know the dragon at the end of the dungeon dive at DnDXP? You know, the one that mercilessly slaughtered almost every single party that went up against it? By these peoples' own arguements, they feel that this encounter was neither risky nor potentially lethal, regardless of body count, simply because the creature's damage was not drastically randomized.

If your character is in the wilderness or downa dungeon then no death is arbitary - you choose to go into danger; you can't then complain when it turned out that it really, really, was dangerous.
Tell you what. Try playing just one campaign with the house rules that 1) nobody is allowed to do anything except attack or cast magic missile, and 2) any enemy who rolls a natural 20 instantly kills his target, with no save, even if the attack wouldn't actually have hit, or even caused damage.

Dangerous enough for you? Because that's the logical extension of what you're arguing for.

Ok, ok, I deserved that. Sorry about the superiority tone. I haven't played with anyone who doesn't like lethal combat, so I guess it's kinda in there as the 'default' method.
Who said anybody disliked lethal combat? I certainly like there to be plenty of danger in my combat! I simply prefer that that danger come from competent enemies with powerful capabilities and excellent tactics that allow them to use those capabilities to full effect, rather than the danger coming from a bad die roll.

JadedDM

2008-03-11, 02:14 PM

Some people want their roleplaying games potentially lethal (personally, most of the RPGs I play in feature a non-negligible likelihood of one-hit-kills through ordinary attacks, and usually kill or severly hurt characters within two or three hits), other people are rather about roleplaying the persona they created and couldn't care less about some dice rolls, fights or whatever, and certainly would not be pleased by the character they put so much investment into suddenly perishing by anything else than their own decision. Both are equally valid ways of playing, and while you may consider this kindergarten, I see no reason why I should not make the game fun for all of my friends (because that's what games are about, you see, fun, just in case you forgot) if I can as gamemaster.

Yeah, but...no offense to that type of play-style, but if you want to play in a game where the dice don't have a big effect on what happens to you, you really shouldn't be playing D&D. Freeform would work better. D&D is all about dice rolls and 'fights or whatever.' You can pretty it up so it has a story and heavy roleplaying (like I do), but at its core...it's about dice and killing things (or being killed).

I'm in the 'combat should have the potential to be lethal' camp. And before someone says to me sarcastically, "Oh, so you think it's FUN to have your character who you've worked so hard on get slaughtered by a low-level mook or random encounter?" the answer is 'no.' But the POTENTIAL of death is what makes these battles fun. If I know for a fact I have no chance of dying, then what is the point?

Imagine playing your favorite video game. You find a cheat that makes you invincible. How much fun does this make your game? Well, it might be a lot of fun blasting through every challenge without breaking a sweat the first couple of times. But after a short while, the game becomes boring. Why? Because there's no risk, no chance of failure. Your victory means nothing. A 5 year old could win the game that way. So how can you take any pride in it?

D&D is the same way. Remove the RISK of death, and you remove the thrill of combat. The only battles that are remotely interesting are the boss fights. Any random encounters or battles with mooks (which incidentally make up...what, 80% of the combat in the game to begin with?) just become chores to hurry through so you can get back to something else. You roll the dice, you go through the motions, but it's not exciting; it's not fun.

Artanis

2008-03-11, 02:18 PM

Who said anything about removing the risk?

Because pretty much all I'm seeing is people preferring that the risk come from a different source. Pretty much all I'm seeing is people preferring that the risk come from enemies who can actually be a threat on any roll, rather than being zero threat at all unless they roll a 20, at which point they're instantly lethal.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 02:20 PM

Ah, at last! Someone who understands the purpose of challenges and doesn't subscribe to this kindergarten-style 'let's make sure everyone feels good' attitude. Thank you, nagora.

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.

cheesecake

2008-03-11, 02:35 PM

I get well attached to all my characters. Some had died. Some have retired. And some well are stilling fighting battles. I hate to see them die, but they do die. Its an aspect of the game. And mostly I have a back up character sheet and the GM fudges some way to get me back in the game before too long passes. Not in the middle of a fight, or anything like that. But at the next town, or something.

It seems that they are dumbing down anything to do with D&D, and MMORPGs. Everquest 2 used to be a tough game, now its a cake walk. WoW...well WoW has always been stupid....No one wants a challenge or to learn how to play.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 02:37 PM

If your character is in the wilderness or downa dungeon then no death is arbitary - you choose to go into danger; you can't then complain when it turned out that it really, really, was dangerous.

Yes I can, actually. Because chances are I didn't "choose" to go into danger, chances are it was just assumed that I was going to go into danger, and nobody bothered to ask me. Either way, it was arbitrary. D&D simply isn't set up for anything else.

Can't be done. If a player has your attitude that their PC should be coddled at all points short of the climatic battle (and probably then have a good chance of resurrection), the the problem is with the player, not the game. Essentially, it's the player's attitude that's making the game suck for them, and that's not the DM or the game designer's concern.

I, personally, have the attitude that "PC is given arbitrary dangerous mission, PC accepts arbitrary dangerous mission, PC dies" is a boring, unfun, uninteresting way to play the game. That's not my attitude that's at fault, that's just the game that I like to play. The risk of death doesn't make the game more exciting for me, it just adds another layer of tedium to an already tedious playstyle.

Only if you let it.

Even dying mid-session is no real deal - get the DM to let you run some of the monsters, or roll up a new character (not so easy, I know, in post 1ed, but you could try). Also, try having another character ready - the son of your main character or their favourite henchman or whatever. Get the DM to let you haunt the other characters with advice/snarky comments until your death is avenged. If all else fails, sit and read over the PH for a while and make the other players tea/coffee/ninja burgers.

None of these things constitute "creative contribution". Again, this is a fundamental playstyle clash. When I create a character, I will be creating that character because that is the character I want to play. Telling me I have to stop playing that character, just because of a random dice roll, is functionally equivalent to telling the DM that he's got to start running a different setting because of a random dice roll. "Sorry, failed your save vs. magictech, you've gotta turn this into an Eberron game".

A "character shield" is, IMO, just sad.

It's the dead characters that make the surviving characters memorable.

No, it's their words, actions, and interactions with others that make the surviving character's memorable.

I don't enjoy the style of game where you start out playing Freddie the Fighter, then when he gets killed you play Bill the Barbarian, until he gets killed and you play Walter the Wizard. I don't enjoy the style of game where a "player character" is a disposable vehicle through which the players experience the gameworld or plot. Make me worry about keeping my character alive, and I'll start worrying about why the hell they're taking this stupid mission in the first place.

Indon

2008-03-11, 02:53 PM

To illustrate: care for a round of Russian Roulette?

The risk is easy to calculate- one in six. Every time. Consistent, reliable.

A good point - risk in D&D is in fact not at all becoming more consistent by that perfectly reasonable definition. It's just being reduced.

Critical hits exist in both 3'rd edition and 4'th edition. In both games what determines a critical hit is a simple and consistent system. Critical hits mean more in 3'rd edition. Thus, the change is not at all towards consistency, but towards insignificance.

Thank you for your assistance in clarifying my point.

Early Gygaxian D&D had a fair amount of Russian Roulette-some things killed characters at random, and whether or not this would happen was not predictable.
Spheres of Annihilation do not kill at random.

There's not much you can do with Russian Roulette to improve your chances of survival, precisely because death is well and truly random.
I think it's only because the game has one very simple rule, and no social or significant game elements at all.

For instance, say the Prisoner's Dilemma involved a random chance of death instead of years in prison. It still remains a very interesting game! In contrast, if Russian Roulette was a multi-round game in which the loser sprayed himself with Febreze firing from the gun, it would not become more interesting (though it would probably be more amusing).

High risk does not neccessarily simplify strategy. High risk does neccessarily increase its' appeal to a large portion of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), at least.

Artanis

2008-03-11, 03:00 PM

Geez, it's like I'm not even here :smallannoyed:

Indon

2008-03-11, 03:18 PM

You know the dragon at the end of the dungeon dive at DnDXP? You know, the one that mercilessly slaughtered almost every single party that went up against it?
That dragon was not risky. It was an intentional TPK on the part of the DM (well, technically the module designer). "I've decided to send something against you that outclasses you," is not risk. It's not risky for the players because they're almost sure to die, and it's not even risky for the NPC anymore - that dragon killed all those PC parties about like all the PC parties killed the earlier encounters.

That's the problem - the less risk you have, the less danger your players are in as a DM unless you intentionally set out to kill them. And when you send out something stronger than your players, your players are about as likely to kill it as your normal encounters are to kill the players - combat is less risky for NPC's, too.

Dangerous enough for you? Because that's the logical extension of what you're arguing for.
The less significant the risk in the system, the more DM fiat is required to kill them.

The logical extention of removing risk is needing the equivalent of "Rocks fall, you die," to threaten your players' characters.

Winterwind

2008-03-11, 03:24 PM

Yeah, but...no offense to that type of play-style, but if you want to play in a game where the dice don't have a big effect on what happens to you, you really shouldn't be playing D&D.I don't play D&D. :smalltongue:
I merely participate in this debate for it's merits with regard to playing roleplaying games in general.

Freeform would work better.I know, it used the mode of play in one of the groups I play in (pity that group dissolved a few months ago :smallfrown: ).

D&D is all about dice rolls and 'fights or whatever.' You can pretty it up so it has a story and heavy roleplaying (like I do), but at its core...it's about dice and killing things (or being killed).Well... the only D&D game I participated in this far (2nd edition) did not contain all that many fights, and it could have easily done with even less. Now, I can't say I know all that much about D&D, but it didn't seem to me there was much reason for significantly more or less combat in it than in any other fantasy RPG I know, which puts it in the range from "none" to "essentially non-stop". If you say there is, I'll have to believe you, but pretty much all tabletop roleplaying games I know are open for any kind of play.

I'm in the 'combat should have the potential to be lethal' camp. And before someone says to me sarcastically, "Oh, so you think it's FUN to have your character who you've worked so hard on get slaughtered by a low-level mook or random encounter?" the answer is 'no.' But the POTENTIAL of death is what makes these battles fun. If I know for a fact I have no chance of dying, then what is the point?

Imagine playing your favorite video game. You find a cheat that makes you invincible. How much fun does this make your game? Well, it might be a lot of fun blasting through every challenge without breaking a sweat the first couple of times. But after a short while, the game becomes boring. Why? Because there's no risk, no chance of failure. Your victory means nothing. A 5 year old could win the game that way. So how can you take any pride in it?

D&D is the same way. Remove the RISK of death, and you remove the thrill of combat. The only battles that are remotely interesting are the boss fights. Any random encounters or battles with mooks (which incidentally make up...what, 80% of the combat in the game to begin with?) just become chores to hurry through so you can get back to something else. You roll the dice, you go through the motions, but it's not exciting; it's not fun.Well, first of all, I'm in the combat should have the potential to be lethal camp myself, except I don't call it the "combat should have the potential to be lethal camp", I call it the "I prefer combat to have the potential to be lethal for myself camp" (and please don't think of me as picky here, I just consider the emphasis important). Mostly so that either I get the proper suspense when the non-combatant part of my characters tries to avoid combat, or that the combatant part of my characters is truly brave by entering combat, instead of just being violent jerks, and, well, essentially for the same reasons as yours. But I know that some people (and I know some of them, am friends with them and play with them) are even more about the storytelling or character-exploration than I am, and that they would not consider it fun if some dice rolls ended their character's life in an uncalled for moment. And I find that perfectly all right, and can emphatise with this notion to some extent.

All I want to say is that, yeah, wanting to play with the risk is a perfectly understandable stance, which I even share myself - but it's by no means the only, or an objectively better way to play.
And most definitely not a dumber way to play... *looks at cheesecake :smallannoyed: *

@Artanis: About your question who said something about removing the risk... I kinda did, when I mentioned that in our group the gamemasters tend to present the option to the players of switching off the risk of death individually. Sorry if this particular sub-topic spun out of control. :smallredface:

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 03:44 PM

Yeah, but...no offense to that type of play-style, but if you want to play in a game where the dice don't have a big effect on what happens to you, you really shouldn't be playing D&D. Freeform would work better. D&D is all about dice rolls and 'fights or whatever.' You can pretty it up so it has a story and heavy roleplaying (like I do), but at its core...it's about dice and killing things (or being killed).

That's exactly why don't play D&D. I don't much like the core gameplay.

I'm in the 'combat should have the potential to be lethal' camp. And before someone says to me sarcastically, "Oh, so you think it's FUN to have your character who you've worked so hard on get slaughtered by a low-level mook or random encounter?" the answer is 'no.' But the POTENTIAL of death is what makes these battles fun. If I know for a fact I have no chance of dying, then what is the point?

The point varies from fight to fight.

Perhaps, for example, the point is "my character is slowly losing touch with his humanity, and his wanton slaughter of these people reflects that". Maybe the point is "we have to prevent the rise of the Dark Lord Karnath at any cost" perhaps the point is "oh yes, I am just that badass" (see Exalted, Weapons of the Gods).

Somebody upthread brought up the idea of Russian Roulette, and that's always how I've felt about the "risk of death" concept. In and of itself, I don't see how the risk of your character dying is fun. I can see how a tactical challenge can be fun, and I can see how risk of death can be fun as part of a tactical challenge, but in and of itself risk of death just isn't that interesting, which is why I'm in favour of removing potentially fatal effects that you can't plan for. If my character goes into an encounter and gets taken out by a lucky critical, I've not been challenged, I've just been hosed. Similarly if I go into an encounter and take out the enemy with a lucky critical, I haven't been clever, I've just been lucky.

Imagine playing your favorite video game. You find a cheat that makes you invincible. How much fun does this make your game? Well, it might be a lot of fun blasting through every challenge without breaking a sweat the first couple of times. But after a short while, the game becomes boring. Why? Because there's no risk, no chance of failure. Your victory means nothing. A 5 year old could win the game that way. So how can you take any pride in it?

Conversely, imagine playing your favourite video game. Imagine you get killed. "No problem" you think "I'll just go back and reload". Then you discover that this game has an exciting feature whereby, when you die, it deletes all your savegames.

Or worse, imagine playing your favourite video game, and finding that once you died, that was it, you were never allowed to play that game again.

D&D is the same way. Remove the RISK of death, and you remove the thrill of combat. The only battles that are remotely interesting are the boss fights. Any random encounters or battles with mooks (which incidentally make up...what, 80% of the combat in the game to begin with?) just become chores to hurry through so you can get back to something else. You roll the dice, you go through the motions, but it's not exciting; it's not fun.

I get that some people view things that way, but to stick with the computer game analogy for a minute...

The thing is that for some people, your character is kind of like your current session in a video game. I die, well no harm no foul, I'll just try the level again, not an issue.

For some people, your character represents a significant investment of time and energy. For these people, dying is kind of like getting killed in a computer game that's really stingy with savepoints, and having to do a difficult part of the game all over again. It's irksome, and a lot of people consider it bad game design, but it's not a deal breaker.

For some, though, your character is the entire point of the game. Rolling up a new character is basically the equivalent of asking you to start the game over from scratch, or start playing a completely different game. For those people death should be rare or impossible, because it's literally game-wrecking.

Saph

2008-03-11, 03:50 PM

I don't play RPGs to be "challenged".

You probably shouldn't play RPGs that involve combat, then.

That said, however, if you don't play games that involve combat, challenge, and risk, why would you care about exactly what fraction of risk they involve?

- Saph

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 03:55 PM

You probably shouldn't play RPGs that involve combat, then.

A great many games involve combat without it being a "challenge".

That said, however, if you don't play games that involve combat, challenge, and risk, why would you care about exactly what fraction of risk they involve?

The same reason that other people, who only play games with an enormous amount of combat, challenge, and risk, care exactly what fraction of risk games involve?

The point I am arguing in this is that "PCs can get arbitrarily killed by a bunch of random unpredictable crap" is not a synonym for "fun".

Artanis

2008-03-11, 04:15 PM

That dragon was not risky. It was an intentional TPK on the part of the DM (well, technically the module designer). "I've decided to send something against you that outclasses you," is not risk. It's not risky for the players because they're almost sure to die, and it's not even risky for the NPC anymore - that dragon killed all those PC parties about like all the PC parties killed the earlier encounters.
And yet, that's exactly what many people on this thread are calling "childish" and "kindergarten". They call randomness - and ONLY randomness - "risky" and "lethal", completely and utterly ignoring the fact that there are, in fact, other ways to kill PCs than just to have a moronic weakling roll a 20. YOU recognize this, which is just one of the many examples of why I actually respect you and your opinion.

To these other people, however, a lucky goblin with a stick and a gushing head wound is more dangerous that an insta-TPK dragon, simply because that goblin's threat level is utterly random.

That's the problem - the less risk you have, the less danger your players are in as a DM unless you intentionally set out to kill them. And when you send out something stronger than your players, your players are about as likely to kill it as your normal encounters are to kill the players - combat is less risky for NPC's, too.
I agree that encounters should be risky, and that that risk is what makes said encounters - and victory over them or defeat at their hands - actually significant. The part I disagree on is the notion that increasing randomness is the only way to increase risk.

As an illustration, consider two 1v1 contests: one die-rolling contest against whoever you like, and one game of chess against an evenly-matched opponent. Each of the two contests have the same chance of victory: 50%. No matter which one you agree to do, you also run the 50% risk of defeat. However, in the die-rolling contest, you have no ability to affect the outcome: the higher roll wins. In the game of Chess, you run just as large an overall risk of defeat, but that risk is in whether or not you can outwit, outplay, and just plain beat the other guy.

Some people may prefer the former. Some people may prefer the latter. They are each made risky by entirely different forces, but that risk is nonetheless the same: 50% chance of defeat.

The less significant the risk in the system, the more DM fiat is required to kill them.

The logical extention of removing risk is needing the equivalent of "Rocks fall, you die," to threaten your players' characters.
Which is why I'm not saying to remove risk. I'm saying to shift that risk to strategy, rather than to luck. If Enemy 1 has an X% chance of beating me simply by getting a lucky crit, and Enemy 2 has an X% chance of beating me by outsmarting and outfighting me, then the overall risk is identical.

The only difference is that for many people (myself included), being defeated by Enemy 2 is much less frustrating than being beaten by Enemy 1 because I was beaten by a worthy foe...not by the luck of the draw.

Saph

2008-03-11, 04:32 PM

A great many games involve combat without it being a "challenge".

Tabletop RPGs? Which ones?

- Saph

JadedDM

2008-03-11, 04:52 PM

I don't play D&D.

That's exactly why don't play D&D. I don't much like the core gameplay.

Okay, okay...but...this IS a thread that is about the lethality of combat in D&D (specifically in 4E, in comparison to previous editions). So really, we are talking about D&D, not roleplaying in general.

Now, I can't say I know all that much about D&D, but it didn't seem to me there was much reason for significantly more or less combat in it than in any other fantasy RPG I know, which puts it in the range from "none" to "essentially non-stop". If you say there is, I'll have to believe you, but pretty much all tabletop roleplaying games I know are open for any kind of play.

I run 2E games myself, and sometimes I run combat-heavy games, but most of the time I run combat-light games. We can go entire sessions without a single battle. But, that's only because I choose to run it that way. The system itself (and this goes for any edition of D&D, although some are more combat-oriented than others) is built on the expectation you will fight. Most of your stats are directly combat related (your to hit, your HP, your Armor Class, your saving throws) and the primary method of acquiring XP is through combat.

Going through the core rules alone, the 2E DMG only recommends giving a player 100-200 XP for 'good roleplaying.' This means a non-combat session will yield far less XP than one with combat. I've created my own XP reward system that rewards good roleplaying better, but again--that's a houserule created by me to fit my own game.

Conversely, imagine playing your favourite video game. Imagine you get killed. "No problem" you think "I'll just go back and reload". Then you discover that this game has an exciting feature whereby, when you die, it deletes all your savegames.

I'm probably showing my age here, but I remember a time when video games did not have save features. So if you made it to the last boss and ran out of lives, you started over again. Those games were frustrating, but still fun. (And so much more rewarding when you finally did manage to beat it. Telling people you beat Super Mario 64 is nowhere near as impressive as telling them you can beat the original Super Mario Brothers.)

Or worse, imagine playing your favourite video game, and finding that once you died, that was it, you were never allowed to play that game again.

Unless your DM forces you to pack your things and leave the game table forever when a character dies, I don't see how that analogy is apt. You roll another character and keep playing.

For some, though, your character is the entire point of the game. Rolling up a new character is basically the equivalent of asking you to start the game over from scratch, or start playing a completely different game. For those people death should be rare or impossible, because it's literally game-wrecking.

Then those people shouldn't play D&D. (And I know...you don't play D&D. Which is why, and I mean no offense by this, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic at hand--the lethality of combat in 4E.)

Winterwind

2008-03-11, 05:10 PM

Okay, okay...but...this IS a thread that is about the lethality of combat in D&D (specifically in 4E, in comparison to previous editions). So really, we are talking about D&D, not roleplaying in general.That's why I remained silent, until people started to make generally applicable statements - about how the presence or absence of risk could enhance or destroy fun, about players wishing for the possibility of PC death or the lack thereof... that's all stuff that is fundamentally applicable to any tabletop roleplaying game, no matter whether it involves dungeons, or dragons, or neither. :smallwink:

Unless your DM forces you to pack your things and leave the game table forever when a character dies, I don't see how that analogy is apt. You roll another character and keep playing.It holds, as far as I understand the analogy, because to some people (and here I would actually include myself, at least to some extent) roleplaying is not about fulfilling a mission (like, say, rescuing the princess), it's about playing that character. They could roll up a new character, but what good does that do to them, if they wanted to play the character who just died, and not another?

Kioran

2008-03-11, 05:32 PM

It holds, as far as I understand the analogy, because to some people (and here I would actually include myself, at least to some extent) roleplaying is not about fulfilling a mission (like, say, rescuing the princess), it's about playing that character. They could roll up a new character, but what good does that do to them, if they wanted to play the character who just died, and not another?

Well, to some, or even many of us, the mission, or the persona of many characters, would lose any appeal if they weren´t dangerous. It might suck to lose the character, but for some of us it wouldn´t have been much of a character if that Char wouldn´t have been mortal. Combat without any risk is pointless - why "roleplay" slaughtering mooks who can´t even put a dent in you? I´d rather do that freeform than use a system as tactical as D&D.

Conversely, most systems preferred by "character roleplayers" (or Tavern lurkers, as reffered to by me) use one dice pool for a horde of mooks, or allow you to gloss over these minor details anyway. In D&D, combat is a little more, shall we say, demanding on your time. If it requires resolution of combat, it should threaten you, otherwise it´s pointless waste of time.

However, 4th Edition (hopefully) does not do anything as drastic as removing the threat from any but boss fights.....which would have been said indeed.

Rutee

2008-03-11, 05:37 PM

Why should Mooks be lethal? Anyone unimportant enough to not deserve a name shouldn't be a lethal to a PC, as a general rule. They're resource drainers, not killers, narratively.

Kioran

2008-03-11, 06:00 PM

Why should Mooks be lethal? Anyone unimportant enough to not deserve a name shouldn't be a lethal to a PC, as a general rule. They're resource drainers, not killers, narratively.

Three problems:

1: Combat takes time. If they are insignificant and not even threatening, save that time.
2: Ressource drain: unless combat runs on very consistently depleting ressources, there´s always random involved. Where there´s random, there´s the chance of random biting you.
3: Consistency. Just like I wouldn´t build Warships in Gundam and train Infantry in Escaflowne because these wouldn´t do squat, most mooks wouldn´t even attack you if they didn´t have a remote chance of killing you. If they can´t kill PCs, for whatever reason, but will likely die themselves, they´ll go to some length to avoid fighting them.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 06:28 PM

Tabletop RPGs? Which ones?

- Saph

Starting out obvious, in Feng Shui and Weapons of the Gods, a great many fights are intended to be set pieces, not challenges. When a gang of mobsters with machetes attack a bunch of Feng Shui characters, it's not supposed to deplete their resources, or challenge their tactical acumen, it's supposed to be a set piece. WUSHU is the logical extension of this.

At the other end of the spectrum, in a great many games, getting into a fight is a sure sign that you've done something wrong. In Call of Cthulhu, for example, the challenge is avoiding the fight that will otherwise inevitably kill you, while in the Dying Earth RPG pretty much everything hinges on the arbitrary roll of a D6.

It's actually comparatively rare for a game to have D&D's assumption that combat is a core element of gameplay, or that it is designed to challenge the players. There's actually a big difference between a combat system designed to represent (broadly) what happens when one person tries to maim or murder another, and one designed as a strategic minigame.

Then of course there's the indie games, like Dogs in the Vineyard or for that matter the NRE System (www.nre.wikidot.com) I'm currently working on, where combat is just an extension of a general Conflict Resolution mechanic, and where once again the aim is not to challenge the player but simply to provide a way of distributing narrative control between players and GM.

Rutee

2008-03-11, 06:29 PM

Three problems:

1: Combat takes time. If they are insignificant and not even threatening, save that time.
2: Ressource drain: unless combat runs on very consistently depleting ressources, there´s always random involved. Where there´s random, there´s the chance of random biting you.
3: Consistency. Just like I wouldn´t build Warships in Gundam and train Infantry in Escaflowne because these wouldn´t do squat, most mooks wouldn´t even attack you if they didn´t have a remote chance of killing you. If they can´t kill PCs, for whatever reason, but will likely die themselves, they´ll go to some length to avoid fighting them.

1. That's actually the approach I most generally take, in terms of Mooks as standalones. Mooks typically help out a genuine threat (Say, one of the Big Bad's lieutenants) when I run stuff though.
2. There's not really much of a chance of a mook being lethal when I run things. If it doesn't have a name, it can't take you from living to dead; It can take you from living to negs, but not to dead. Even if it takes you to -10.
3. The armies in your worlds are very lax then, to allow soldiers to choose the orders they receive. Not that I can't see frightening the poor things off, but they won't choose to run immediately. Mook Chivalry seems to be wrapped up in the strange belief that they're genuinely threats to the heroes :smallbiggrin:

Indon

2008-03-11, 06:32 PM

And yet, that's exactly what many people on this thread are calling "childish" and "kindergarten". They call randomness - and ONLY randomness - "risky" and "lethal", completely and utterly ignoring the fact that there are, in fact, other ways to kill PCs than just to have a moronic weakling roll a 20. YOU recognize this, which is just one of the many examples of why I actually respect you and your opinion.

To these other people, however, a lucky goblin with a stick and a gushing head wound is more dangerous that an insta-TPK dragon, simply because that goblin's threat level is utterly random.
I think I'm starting to understand where our opinions differ.

You equate 'risk' with 'bad things will happen'. However, I equate 'risk' with 'bad things may happen' - emphasis on the chance element.

We can agree that a 100% chance to live through something is not risky. Nor is it dangerous. However, a 100% chance to die is still not risky - there is no element of 'risk', as I view it, even though the lethality is quite absolute. Risk, to higher or lower degrees, is found in the ranges where there is a chance of things.

As such, that dragon was not a risky encounter, though it was quite lethal. Lethality is not fun - risk is. Risk makes lethality fun.

As an illustration, consider two 1v1 contests: one die-rolling contest against whoever you like, and one game of chess against an evenly-matched opponent.

You're confusing a couple of concepts here, I think - particularly that of risk and tactical difficulty.

Craps is a 100% random game - it has risk, but it is not tactical in nature. Meanwhile, Chess is a 100% determined game - it has no risk, and is entirely tactical in nature.

Which is why I'm not saying to remove risk. I'm saying to shift that risk to strategy, rather than to luck.
As such, you are indeed advocating less risk, in order to shift the focus of the game to a more tactical one.

If Enemy 1 has an X% chance of beating me simply by getting a lucky crit, and Enemy 2 has an X% chance of beating me by outsmarting and outfighting me, then the overall risk is identical.

The only difference is that for many people (myself included), being defeated by Enemy 2 is much less frustrating than being beaten by Enemy 1 because I was beaten by a worthy foe...not by the luck of the draw.

There's a number of downsides with your proposal to shift more towards tactics over risk in combat, however.

Firstly, only the best tactician in any given D&D group can offer a challenging combat encounter as DM. The players will readily outmaneuver individuals inferior in ability to them (and bear in mind that the DM is outnumbered in this), and the only way a DM can counter this is by bringing up successively stronger opponents until essentially, the DM is sending dragons that will kill the party - the monster equivalent of "rocks fall, everyone dies, Someone else better DM next time."

Secondly, tactical focus will break the game's CR system for most games (for any sufficiently complex tactical system as to be considered interesting by, well, any of us). The reason for this is the same as for the first - individuals will have differing levels of tactical ability.

So while Bob's kobolds are speedbumps which heap easy XP unto Bob's players, Tucker's kobolds will murder his party so many times he'll start tracking the Kobolds' experience from killing the PC's. The same works in converse for the players - My group, being collectively good at picking apart tactical problems, will go from level 1-30 (and presumably according to Mr. Hemmens, subsequently "win the game") quite easily, but if I were to play for a group of kids at the local comic shop, they'll be playing for years before they reach Paragon levels, for all I'd have to nerf the encounters - and subsequent XP, since you get XP per kill now.

Thirdly, many, many people will find combat boring. Once they've figured out the basic tactics, the principles of maneuverability, cracked the available exploits, combat will become uninteresting for these people. Much like high-level Go players (who will often resolve their games by forfeit well before people like me can tell who's winning), these individuals will see the outcome of the combat well before it is over, but unlike 3'rd edition in which once you see it coming you can at least expedite it a bit, 4'th edition combats are going to be polyround affairs in which the only point of interest will be, "Will I have to use one healing surge at the end of the combat... or two?"

This problem is particularly compounded when not facing bosses - so during most combat. It becomes a matter of the players thinking, "Well, I don't care in the least about this fight, but since how well I do determines if the Boss of the Day will be a cakewalk or a guaranteed TPK, I better work hard at this." (More on this next point!) Note the lack of fun being had - the combat is uninteresting, but doing well at it is mandatory.

Fourthly, the sweet spot for challenges is smaller. I think we can both agree that if the NPC's are too weak, they have no way of significantly harming the PC's and combat is boring for everyone (albeit free XP). If the NPC's are too strong, the PC's have no way of significantly harming them and combat is boring for everyone (and lethal). By introducing greater randomness - greater risk - into combat mechanics, it becomes possible to lose to less powerful or beat more powerful opponents. So why yes, you may indeed die to a goblin in a high-risk system, you also have a chance against that dragon at the end of your module, because you are like goblins to him ("This is Vigo! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!").

Fhaolan

2008-03-11, 06:40 PM

Telling me I have to stop playing that character, just because of a random dice roll, is functionally equivalent to telling the DM that he's got to start running a different setting because of a random dice roll. "Sorry, failed your save vs. magictech, you've gotta turn this into an Eberron game".

You know, I'd play in a game like that. Once. Just to experience it.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 06:47 PM

Unless your DM forces you to pack your things and leave the game table forever when a character dies, I don't see how that analogy is apt. You roll another character and keep playing.

As Winterwind points out, for some of us "rolling another character" is not equivalent to reloading from a previous save point, it's equivalent to stopping that game and playing a different one. If I'm playing a game which is all about my character coming to terms with his grief over the death of his sister, when my character dies, I can't continue that journey with another character.

Basically the thing is that I don't care about the mission, I don't care about the plot, I don't even particularly care about the world, I care about the characters. Asking me to change characters halfway through the game is functionally equivalent to asking the DM to switch settings.

Then those people shouldn't play D&D. (And I know...you don't play D&D. Which is why, and I mean no offense by this, none of this is particularly relevant to the topic at hand--the lethality of combat in 4E.)

Again, as Winterwind pointed out, people weren't talking specifically about D&D, they were making broad, general statements "the risk of death is what makes combat meaningful".

If you'd said "getting killed by lucky critical hits is part of the charm of D&D" I'd agree with you, but what you said was something much more general: that in the absence of the risk of death, PC actions have no meaning.

Artanis

2008-03-11, 06:48 PM

Craps is a 100% random game - it has risk, but it is not tactical in nature. Meanwhile, Chess is a 100% determined game - it has no risk, and is entirely tactical in nature.
Ah hah. It would appear that we are using different definitions of the word "risk"

I am defining risk as the possibility of an unfavorable outcome (namely your character being stabbed to death) regardless of what causes that possibility. Under that definition, the risk - the chance of defeat - isn't changing one bit from 3e to 4e.

It appears that you, on the other hand, are defining risk as the uncontrollable element (or something along those lines). Under that definition, the risk - the amount of the environment outside the player's control - is, indeed, decreasing from 3e to 4e.

Except...well...the actual dictionary definition of "risk" is "the possibility of suffering loss or harm; danger"

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-11, 06:57 PM

You're confusing a couple of concepts here, I think - particularly that of risk and tactical difficulty.

Actually, you're the one confusing a couple of concepts: you're confusing risk and randomness.

Suppose you have a trap that causes 1D20 damage.

Suppose you have another trap that causes zero damage on a roll of 1-10, and 20 damage on a roll of 11-20.

The risk is the same for both traps, but the first is less random than the second. I personally find the first type of trap more fun to deal with, because it doesn't have the "no effect, or you're screwed" problem you otherwise have.

You keep suggesting that in a low-variance system, encounters will either kill you 100% of the time, or present no threat to you at all. This is nonsense. In fact, that's exactly what you get from high variance systems.

Again we get the example of a first level party against an Orc. Either the party wins initiative, and kills the thing before it can act, or the Orc wins initiative, and kills a party member before they can act. Neither of these situations are fun.

Surely it's better to have a situation where anything that has a chance of killing you has a chance of hurting you as well, instead of having the absurd situation where you have a cakewalk, or a TPK, and no middle ground.

Indon

2008-03-11, 07:02 PM

It appears that you, on the other hand, are defining risk as the uncontrollable element (or something along those lines).

I would say that difficulty more aptly describes the non-random chance of an unfavorable outcome - it is difficult to win at chess, but less difficult to win at tic-tac-toe.

However, it is not difficult to win at craps - but playing the game is risky. Poker has both elements of difficulty and risk.

Saph

2008-03-11, 07:39 PM

At the other end of the spectrum, in a great many games, getting into a fight is a sure sign that you've done something wrong. In Call of Cthulhu, for example, the challenge is avoiding the fight that will otherwise inevitably kill you.

In CoC, you're far more likely to have your character die, and it's far more challenging to keep them alive, than it is in the average D&D game. But I seem to remember that you like CoC. So I'm not sure why you're okay with characters suffering sudden and hard-to-prevent death in CoC, but not in D&D.

There's actually a big difference between a combat system designed to represent (broadly) what happens when one person tries to maim or murder another, and one designed as a strategic minigame.

*sigh* D&D combat isn't designed as a 'strategic minigame'. It's not a minigame, it's part of the game - it's all one game, combat, socialising, exploration, all of it. I think if you understood this, you might enjoy D&D a bit more.

- Saph

Kosmopolite

2008-03-11, 07:49 PM

I suppose you could consider any one of those elements a 'mini-game' depending on you or your group's play-style. If you're a particularly fighty group, interested in fighting an rolling dice, then the social interaction in between might be seen as a mini-game designed to affect the 'main aim' of battle. Equally, in a particularly loquacious, storytelling group, one might consider the dice-rolling, battle sections a simple diversion from all the 'proper roleplaying' you might be doing. I'm not saying either way is wrong or less fun, just that different people have different perspectives on it. :)

Rutee

2008-03-11, 07:55 PM

*sigh* D&D combat isn't designed as a 'strategic minigame'. It's not a minigame, it's part of the game - it's all one game, combat, socialising, exploration, all of it. I think if you understood this, you might enjoy D&D a bit more.

- Saph

I'm pretty sure DnD isn't really designed for socializing, just combat and exploration. It has some, obviously, as it's inevitable, but I'm pretty sure it's not designed to facilitate it.

For that matter, between combat and exploration, combat gets significantly more rules and systems applied specifically to it. It seems entirely in-bounds to call DnD a primarily tactical combat game.

Matthew

2008-03-11, 08:01 PM

Going through the core rules alone, the 2E DMG only recommends giving a player 100-200 XP for 'good roleplaying.' This means a non-combat session will yield far less XP than one with combat. I've created my own XP reward system that rewards good roleplaying better, but again--that's a houserule created by me to fit my own game.

You're forgetting all the other types of experienc award available in the core rules, I think. I don't use the default system either, but it's not true that most experience need come from combat by the book.

I'm pretty sure DnD isn't really designed for socializing, just combat and exploration. It has some, obviously, as it's inevitable, but I'm pretty sure it's not designed to facilitate it.

For that matter, between combat and exploration, combat gets significantly more rules and systems applied specifically to it. It seems entirely in-bounds to call DnD a primarily tactical combat game.

Depends which edition you're talking about and what you mean by 'designed for'. For instance, AD&D puts very little effort into providing rules for much beyond combat related elements, but that's because the expectation was that none combat stuff would be 'roleplayed out' and anything that needed to be randomised simply would be.

It is perhaps a questionable approach, but it was a conscious design choice, apparently.

Yahzi

2008-03-12, 12:17 AM

I simply prefer that that danger come from competent enemies with powerful capabilities and excellent tactics that allow them to use those capabilities to full effect, rather than the danger coming from a bad die roll.
Why you be dissin' on the mooks?

They're powerful, even if only by their quantity (like Stalin said, quantity is a quality all its own), and if they can hurt the PCs they are using excellent tactics and capabilities to full effect.

This is what I hate about D&D - the idea that some NPCs/monsters are there solely to get blood on the end of your sword. If you kill people who couldn't have reasonably threatened you, it's murder, not self-defense. Might as well have your heroes slice and dice their way through the orphanage.

Why should Mooks be lethal? Anyone unimportant enough to not deserve a name shouldn't be a lethal to a PC, as a general rule. They're resource drainers, not killers, narratively.
This rather puts our other discussion about NPCs following different rules than PCs into perspective.

Mooks should be lethal because mooks should be people.

Rachel Lorelei

2008-03-12, 12:27 AM

Mooks should be lethal because mooks should be people. Otherwise they're just bags of XP, and you're playing a videogame, not a RPG.

In Nobilis, people can't be lethal. A Noble can effortlessly (in most cases) take on any human in any way.
Are you telling me Nobilis is not an RPG?

Seriously, though--some of the best games have different rules for minions. Weapons of the Gods is a wuxia game, in which you don't even roll to see if you kill any minions, you just roll to see how *many* you kill when you attack them. This fits the genre perfectly--a group of normal swordsmen aren't a threat when you're a martial artist along the lines of characters in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Hero.
This doesn't make the mooks "bags of XP". It models their complete inferiority in combat.

Think your logic through: most people in D&D would be level 1 to, say, 4, Commoners or Experts. They are literally no threat to a high-level or even moderate-level character. I guess D&D is already a video game?

Yahzi

2008-03-12, 12:29 AM

In Nobilis, people can't be lethal. A Noble can effortlessly (in most cases) take on any human in any way.
Are you telling me Nobilis is not an RPG?
Dang, sorry, I edited my post after you made yours. For those reading this, Rachel is not crazy. :smallbiggrin:

I guess it would have been more accurate to say it makes it an RPG I don't care to play. Except that's not even true; I wouldn't mind playing an RPG where the players are immortals once in a while. If I want to do that, I just start the game at 20th level.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 12:31 AM

You must be really loving Borgstromancy in these discussions. :smallbiggrin:

It is perhaps a questionable approach, but it was a conscious design choice, apparently.
Actually, I don't consider it a questionable approach. What I consider problematic is claiming that it's then part of the game, as the previous poster did, and as DnD does. By all means, support whatever you want. Just don't claim you support everything unless you then /do/.

Mooks should be lethal because mooks should be people.
No, a Mook is a narrative and perhaps mechanical construct, to convey that an /actual character/ has minions under their control. They're not people. At least, not in a sense as meaningful as a character is a person (Because characters aren't either; They too, are constructs. But they're constructs that do indeed behave like people). If they were meant to be characters, they wouldn't be the faceless, nameless soldiers or servitors of some real characters. They would be real characters. Perhaps they would be soldiers or servitors of another character just the same, but they would have goals, motivations and the like.

Rachel Lorelei

2008-03-12, 12:38 AM

I guess it would have been more accurate to say it makes it an RPG I don't care to play. Except that's not even true; I wouldn't mind playing an RPG where the players are immortals once in a while.
It's not about immortals. In Nobilis, players are Nobles (effectively, minor gods) who deal with Excrucians--beings who want to unmake reality--and other Nobles. In Weapons of the Gods, your real enemies are going to be other people who Know Kung Fu, not the minions. Individually, those minions are people with friends, relatives, goals, et cetera... but when they're coming at you as an armed force, the fact that you have cultivated your Chi and learned the Heart-Breaking Blade and Waves Like Water styles makes it easy to cut your way through them, compared to going up against the villain with Unfolding Glory and Thunder Hammer.

In Spirit of the Century, you're a pulp hero... which means that if fist-fighting is one of your skills, you can brawl your way through a group of Doctor Volt's goons pretty easily. You're supposed to be able to--that's the genre.

D&D makes you roll damage against creatures who are CR Your Level Minus 10, but they're still going to die in short order and pose no threat. Minion rules just codify this mechanically. How does this have anything to do with whether NPCs are people?

If I want to do that, I just start the game at 20th level.
And when you start the game at 20th level, do NPCs who don't have a lot of class levels suddenly lose all semblance of personality? Because they're effectively mooks, you know.

Jayabalard

2008-03-12, 12:50 AM

You were suppose to take the spirit/nature of the post itself rather than the literal meaning. Death doesn't directly add or subtract fun; all it does is create a impediment that forces you to waste time before you can have fun again. Not necessarily. There are several ways of continuing the game from a TPK that don't involve stopping the game other than some basic narration of the GM to get the game started off in it's new direction.

and some people really enjoy the character creation process as much or even more than actually playing those characters... For them, the game itself is the impediment that forces them to waste time before they can have fun again, and TPKs let them get right back to having fun...

Artanis

2008-03-12, 12:53 AM

Why you be dissin' on the mooks?

They're powerful, even if only by their quantity (like Stalin said, quantity is a quality all its own), and if they can hurt the PCs they are using excellent tactics and capabilities to full effect.

This is what I hate about D&D - the idea that some NPCs/monsters are there solely to get blood on the end of your sword. If you kill people who couldn't have reasonably threatened you, it's murder, not self-defense. Might as well have your heroes slice and dice their way through the orphanage.
I said nothing of the sort. If anything, I said the opposite.

I want enemies who are threats in and of themselves. They may be smart badasses like a dragon, or they might be a swarming horde of kobolds sent into battle by somebody smart enough to realize that zerging the party is the only way to win, or they might be anywhere in between. But the enemies I want are a threat regardless of how lucky they are.

Most of the people I argue against, however, want enemies that are little more than reddish stains on the PCs' swords...unless they roll a natural 20, in which case a PC dies instantly.

Yahzi

2008-03-12, 01:10 AM

And when you start the game at 20th level, do NPCs who don't have a lot of class levels suddenly lose all semblance of personality? Because they're effectively mooks, you know.

I'll answer that with a quote from Rutee:

No, a Mook is a narrative and perhaps mechanical construct, to convey that an /actual character/ has minions under their control. They're not people. At least, not in a sense as meaningful as a character is a person (Because characters aren't either; They too, are constructs. But they're constructs that do indeed behave like people). If they were meant to be characters, they wouldn't be the faceless, nameless soldiers or servitors of some real characters. They would be real characters. Perhaps they would be soldiers or servitors of another character just the same, but they would have goals, motivations and the like.

It's that attitude that anybody can be nameless, faceless mooks. It bothers me in Star Wars and it bothers me in D&D. Yes, of course, I know that soldiers on the battlefield kill people without ever knowing their names. But that's different than the attitude Rutee expresses above. You can have war movies where the enemy are mindless savage automatons, and you can war movies where the enemy are guys like you but on the wrong side. I find one of those kinds of movies to be disturbing.

Rachel Lorelei

2008-03-12, 01:19 AM

???

Do you flesh out the personal hopes, dreams, and quirks of every orc or goblin or bandit you ever throw at your PCs?

Mooks can be people. But functionally, they're often not. Mook mechanics don't change that. If your players spare the goblins and talk to them, then you can improvise personalities, quirks, etc. This doesn't depend on whether the goblins have 4 HP and are fighting characters who deal 1d6+10 damage or whether they don't have HP, they are just killed when you successfully attack them (or whether three of them are killed whenever you successfully attack a group of them).

Rutee

2008-03-12, 01:25 AM

I'll answer that with a quote from Rutee:

It's that attitude that anybody can be nameless, faceless mooks. It bothers me in Star Wars and it bothers me in D&D. Yes, of course, I know that soldiers on the battlefield kill people without ever knowing their names. But that's different than the attitude Rutee expresses above. You can have war movies where the enemy are mindless savage automatons, and you can war movies where the enemy are guys like you but on the wrong side. I find one of those kinds of movies to be disturbing.

Bravo. You're discreditting your opposition by quoting them out of context (In this, different definitions of mook). You're using a definition Rachel posited, rather then the one I go by. No, someone with few class levels isn't by default a mook, by the definition I used. The librarian in the King's Library is low level, but not a mook, if they're being met seperately. That librarian will be an NPC. An actual character, if perhaps an unimportant one (Or perhaps an important one. All depends on circumstance).

The mook will be the grunts in the King's army. The BBEG's Legions of Terror. Faceless servants and soldiers of people. Not "Everyone with few class levels". And given the tastes Rachel's displayed, I suspect she feels the same way.

Rachel Lorelei

2008-03-12, 01:31 AM

To me, mechanically, mooks are enemies who have to come at you in large groups in order to be any kind of threat. Mook mechanics are, well, mechanics that deal with this.

Flavor-wise, "mooks" are more or less what you've said. I'll note that the word has the connotations of combat and/or minionhood. The band of orcs that try to kill you and take your stuff because they think they can take you are mooks.

Dervag

2008-03-12, 02:14 AM

I am not sure that's entirely accurate. I think that's a particular type of Gygaxian adventure, mainly the 'tournament style' adventures, such as Tomb of Horrors. I could be wrong, though, I'm not familiar with that many Gygaxian modules.Remember system shock rolls and the percent chance of resurrection spells failing outright?

Russian Roulette.

Some Gygaxian adventures took this to great lengths, but the structure he wrote into D&D was pretty much always one where players had a real (if not always large) chance of dying from things that it wasn't really within their power to prevent.

Note that for those of you who talk about "realism" including the chance that the PCs could catch dysentery, Gygax's AD&D DM Guide does have a table for that. Well, for generic categories of disease, anyway. It's practically the first thing in the book.

Spheres of Annihilation do not kill at random.Spheres of Annihilation are not the only thing Gygax contributed to D&D*. Remember the percentile resurrection roll.

*Understatement of the decade? Maybe not, but I suspect it's a candidate

I think it's only because the game has one very simple rule, and no social or significant game elements at all.

For instance, say the Prisoner's Dilemma involved a random chance of death instead of years in prison. It still remains a very interesting game! In contrast, if Russian Roulette was a multi-round game in which the loser sprayed himself with Febreze firing from the gun, it would not become more interesting (though it would probably be more amusing).Perhaps, but the amusement would pall quickly. I mean, even if the game consists exclusively of two people rolling six sided dice and spraying each other with Febreze every time they roll a six, what kind of person would you have to be to play that for more than a few minutes?

And it's not entirely a question of how simple the rules are- there are such things as rock-paper-scissors tournaments.

Thing is, rock-paper-scissors has at least the illusion of strategy, because you can try to guess what your opponent will do next. A "good" rock paper scissors player might well have a success rate noticeably greater than one in three against ordinary people.

High risk does not neccessarily simplify strategy. High risk does neccessarily increase its' appeal to a large portion of the population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), at least.You're absolutely right, and no mistake. But the point is that risk isn't fun for everyone, especially when it undermines strategy. Which it can, because risk makes it harder to construct strategies that pay off consistently.

If my character goes into an encounter and gets taken out by a lucky critical, I've not been challenged, I've just been hosed. Similarly if I go into an encounter and take out the enemy with a lucky critical, I haven't been clever, I've just been lucky.Unless, of course, your entire character concept revolves around improving your own chances of scoring a critical hit and making those critical hits count, while being damnably hard to kill otherwise.

Which, unless I am sorely mistaken, is more or less the theory behind a lot of fencer builds.

For some, though, your character is the entire point of the game. Rolling up a new character is basically the equivalent of asking you to start the game over from scratch, or start playing a completely different game. For those people death should be rare or impossible, because it's literally game-wrecking.Unless, of course, the character does something really stupid. If your character is a major investment of time or energy, you'd better be prepared to take care of it as if it were one. But that's going to apply across the board, and I doubt we'll find anyone here who disagrees with the idea that character folly shouldn't carry a risk of death.

1. That's actually the approach I most generally take, in terms of Mooks as standalones. Mooks typically help out a genuine threat (Say, one of the Big Bad's lieutenants) when I run stuff though.I understand the reasoning. That said, I think that mook fights make some sense in some situations. For instance, it may be dramatically appropriate for the heroes to have to fend off an army of weaker soldiers to protect a high value target. Here, the "threat" the mooks pose is not that they will kill the heroes (though they might conceivably do so). The threat is that the heroes will fail to kill them, or fail to kill them fast enough.

Also, there are times when it violates suspension of disbelief for heroes not to encounter at least some mooks. If you're busting into a fortress full of zombies to do battle with the evil cult of clerics running the place, you should expect to run into some zombies. It may not make sense to draw up a full battle grid for the encounter- if the PCs are powerful enough they'll smash right through the zombies in a round or two.

But if the only place you ever find zombies is in the company of the two or three major 'bosses' in the fortress, there's a problem. At least there's a problem for me.

To me, mechanically, mooks are enemies who have to come at you in large groups in order to be any kind of threat. Mook mechanics are, well, mechanics that deal with this.Unless, of course, the mook serves purely as a mechanic for making something else happen, but in that case you could reasonably argue that they aren't mooks. The orc grunt may be a mook when he comes after you with an axe and not a mook when he pulls a lever that drops an avalanche on your characters.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 02:23 AM

Unless, of course, your entire character concept revolves around improving your own chances of scoring a critical hit and making those critical hits count, while being damnably hard to kill otherwise.
I would contest that it's not much of a 'lucky critical' if your build involved making them happen as much as is humanly possible.

I understand the reasoning. That said, I think that mook fights make some sense in some situations. For instance, it may be dramatically appropriate for the heroes to have to fend off an army of weaker soldiers to protect a high value target. Here, the "threat" the mooks pose is not that they will kill the heroes (though they might conceivably do so). The threat is that the heroes will fail to kill them, or fail to kill them fast enough.

Also, there are times when it violates suspension of disbelief for heroes not to encounter at least some mooks. If you're busting into a fortress full of zombies to do battle with the evil cult of clerics running the place, you should expect to run into some zombies. It may not make sense to draw up a full battle grid for the encounter- if the PCs are powerful enough they'll smash right through the zombies in a round or two.

But if the only place you ever find zombies is in the company of the two or three major 'bosses' in the fortress, there's a problem. At least there's a problem for me.
Emphasis mine. That's what happens. The mooks came, they broke their weapons ont he PCs, and they got blown away. I don't even bother. Unless one of the players gets a very clever idea, in the style of The Princess Bride. At that point, the mooks can be interesting. And at that point, they comprise a stand alone encounter.[/QUOTE]

horseboy

2008-03-12, 03:00 AM

Well, I think everyone uses the DM kid-gloves at least sometimes. For example, when I'm introducing my players to a new system, I'm inclined to take steps to make sure they don't just keel over because they got unlucky - I want to make sure they understand how combat flows and how dangerous it can potentially be before I make use of that potential.
We use the three smiley faces rule when we deprogram D&D players for Rolemaster. Every time the player does something stupid like wade into throngs of mooks and gets himself killed he erases a smiley face and gets a redo.

You know, the weird thing, even though I delight in high lethality games, it's very rare for me to die. I can't remember the last time I had a character require a resurrection type spell. I've gone under a time or two, but that just means the next challenge for the group is "How do we save the party member from dying from their wounds." Having the risk of actually dying at any time always brings out the best in my groups.

Titanium Dragon

2008-03-12, 04:39 AM

But it does hearten me to know that 4th ed won't be absolutely death-free. When 1st level characters need Dragons to put them down (as evidenced by the fight in the play reports we've seen). Knowing how powerful 3.5 dragons are, and how they're level 8 minimum for the weakest Adult Dragons, with hatchling dragons in the level 2-3 area, that was a little disturbing. If you're fighting Dragons at level 1, what are you fighting at level 17 that can take down a dozen dragons with ease?

I ran players through a fourth edition adventure based on what was played at the 4e experience with a group of 6 players playing the DDXP characters (I DMed). It was interesting, and it totally disproves that you need an absurdly difficult fight to kill characters.

It was the second encounter of the day and the characters were all at pretty much full hp and had 100% of daily abilities when they entered this room. A boulder rolled around a depressed track on the edge of the room, with the center of the room being safe, and on the far side of the room, beyond the track was a 10 foot high platform with three kobold slingers standing on it. Guarding the stairs to the platform was a group of three minions and a pair of kobold skirmishers, and on top of the platform was a kobold dragon shield.

The characters entered the room and the kobolds set off the boulder trap; everyone rolled for initiative, ect. So the wizard, with visions of seriously injuring two skirmishers and taking out a group of kobold minions runs out in the center of the room directly in front of said kobold swarm, uses their daily Force Orb ability, misses, and is now sitting facing down a horde of kobolds. The warlock goes out, kills one of the minions, and stands by the wizard in hopes of keeping him safer. No dice.

Team kobold swarms off the stairs and surrounds the two characters, mostly concentrating on the wizard; the skirmishers deal him significant damage and almost drop him, and the warlock takes some damage. The ranger moves out to shoot at the kobolds and misses, and the kobold slingers gluepot the fighter in the track of the boulder and only don't do the same to the paladin due to his reroll a hit ability.

Things go from bad to worse as the paladin gives the fighter an extra save (which the fighter fails) then tries to attack one of the nearby minions (and I think failed to hit there as well). The fighter is stuck, throws a handaxe (killing a minion) but fails his save again, while the dragon shield comes down to enter the fray. I believe the cleric attacked in there as well, but attacked one of the skirmishers, hit them (obviously not killing them) and giving the fighter another save (which he also failed).

So it goes back to the wizard and he decides he's going to use one of his spells on an adjacent enemy rather than healing; he's almost dropped from the damage but kills the last of the minions. However, with the dragon shield and the two skirmishers around him and flanking him, he's entirely screwed, and they drop him and almost drop the sorcerer with their actions, while the slingers pepper the characters with more sling bullets. The cleric has to heal the wizard, standing him back up, and he misses with his attack; the ranger hits something but doesn't do enough to kill it (I believe it was a fresh skirmisher, but it may have been the wounded one, I don't really remember), the warlock also provokes a host of AoOs trying to use his ranged abilities in close combat, the fighter stays stuck and misses with his hand axe, and the paladin walks up and tries to stab the dragon shield (who has now interposed himself between the casters and the rest of the party), missing.

Again the wizard gets to go, and he actually uses a healing surge, as does the warlock, but it is too late and the skirmishers, the dragon shield, and the slingers combine to drop both. The cleric is forced to use the last heal and the paladin uses his lay on hands ability to stand up the other one, hurting the dragon shield but not killing him, and the next round the kobolds just dropped both of the casters again; at this point, the only way to stand them both back up is to use both of the remaining uses of the lay on hands ability (which he does), but this leaves the party without any healing. They manage to kill a skirmisher, but the slingers kill the wizard with their next turn (as in, actually kill). Finally the fighter gets free (about to get run over by the boulder the second time) but the party is low on HP, the slingers drop the warlock, and the ranger finally drops a slinger. The fighting keeps intense and most of the party gets pretty low on HP, but eventually they kill the other skirmisher, the dragon shield, and the two remaining slingers after accruing a good bit of extra damage. They lost TWO characters to that encounter, used ALL of their daily abilities and AP (though to be fair, only two of them had AP left at that point due to their disasterous handling of the first encounter of the day), and generally they got very badly beat up and the day was effectively over.

They were disappointed as they wanted to see how they'd fare against the dragon, so a few hours later I re-ran it (though the players all switched characters, save the fighter player, who felt ripped off the last time) and using better tactics they did much better the second time, not having to use any daily abilities and killing all of the kobolds with only one character being knocked unconcious over the course of the fight (the paladin). They did use up all their encounter abilities, but that's just strong play.

So if you fight poorly, you can and will die or at least blow lots of extra resources. And when they finally did get to the dragon, half the party died and everyone but the wizard was pretty much on death's door (3 and 5 hp left IIRC for the cleric and ranger, and several characters had 0 healing surges left).

I think that 4th edition certainly gives you the tools to kill characters, but I think that the primary causes of player death will be stupidity and over-level encounters as opposed to random criticals and save or sucks. Characters don't randomly die; their deaths are the result of concious decisions on their own part, and they made mistakes and can see it coming; you don't just die in a single round in 4th edition (generally, unless you do something really dumb like run out by yourself, way away from the rest of the party), but its quite possible to die over the course of two if you aren't careful.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 05:23 AM

In CoC, you're far more likely to have your character die, and it's far more challenging to keep them alive, than it is in the average D&D game. But I seem to remember that you like CoC. So I'm not sure why you're okay with characters suffering sudden and hard-to-prevent death in CoC, but not in D&D.

I actually don't like CoC very much, for largely the same reasons that I don't like critical hits. Too many Cthulhu investigations grind to a halt because somebody misses a Spot Hidden check.

The distinction you're missing, though, is between something being "challenging" (in the sense of difficult) and something being "a challenge" in the sense of being a preset goal you are expected to achieve. It's challenging to survive combat in Call of Cthulhu, because Cthulhu characters are extremely fragile, but the solution to that is to avoid combat.

That's not the same as D&D. In D&D combat is specifically designed to challenge the players. That's why it has tactical movement and a host of special rules.

*sigh* D&D combat isn't designed as a 'strategic minigame'. It's not a minigame, it's part of the game - it's all one game, combat, socialising, exploration, all of it. I think if you understood this, you might enjoy D&D a bit more.

"Minigames" are, in fact, part of the game. That's what a "minigame" is. Just like "subsystems" are part of the system. If your game has seperate rules for a particular activity, those rules are described as a "subsystem". If those rules have internal gameplay elements not found elsewhere in the system, those rules constitute a minigame.

D&D combat is "part" of D&D in the same way that Pazaak is "part" of Knights of the old republic. It's all one game, but Pazaak is a minigame, by definition.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 05:33 AM

Unless, of course, your entire character concept revolves around improving your own chances of scoring a critical hit and making those critical hits count, while being damnably hard to kill otherwise.

Which, unless I am sorely mistaken, is more or less the theory behind a lot of fencer builds.

As Rutee points out, at that point you're no longer "lucky".

There's a big difference between "50% chance of no damage, 50% chance of lots of damage" and "95% chance of no damage, 5% chance of lots of damage".

Unless, of course, the character does something really stupid. If your character is a major investment of time or energy, you'd better be prepared to take care of it as if it were one. But that's going to apply across the board, and I doubt we'll find anyone here who disagrees with the idea that character folly shouldn't carry a risk of death.

In D&D, absolutely.

There are, however, some games in which character folly absolutely does not carry the risk of death, and nor should it. In a great many genres it is wholly appropriate for players to do things which should be completely suicidal and come out fine at the other end.

nagora

2008-03-12, 06:26 AM

No, it's their words, actions, and interactions with others that make the surviving character's memorable.

For the record, my D&D characters have had relationships and interactions, love affairs, children and the rest of it. But when they go into danger, all that just makes the struggle more worthwhile and surviving the danger makes the "domestic" stuff that much sweeter. I don't use it as an excuse for the DM to spare my character from death when things turns nasty. That just devalues all of it - the adventure and the characterisation.

Of course there are games that are harsher than others, and critical hit rules are generally badly designed IME, but it seems to me that what's actually wrong here is that you don't want to play a game at all.

You seem to want a story-telling exercise where nothing happens to disrupt your control of your character, or at least your conception of the character. That's fine, but it's not a game and to me at least it seems deadly dull and boring.

There are, however, some games in which character folly absolutely does not carry the risk of death, and nor should it. In a great many genres it is wholly appropriate for players to do things which should be completely suicidal and come out fine at the other end.

Yes, but those genres are "Chartered Accountancy RPGs" or "High School Adventures" or such like (actually, even then I doubt that your assertion holds true) but in a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" only a half-wit would expect that "folly would not carry the risk of death". You have dungeons AND dragons, for f*&£'s sake!

I mean, would you expect the same lack of risk in a game called "Minefields and Guide Dogs"? The combination basically tells you that death is going to be a possibility.

Saph

2008-03-12, 06:57 AM

Yes, but those genres are "Chartered Accountancy RPGs" or "High School Adventures" or such like (actually, even then I doubt that your assertion holds true) but in a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" only a half-wit would expect that "folly would not carry the risk of death". You have dungeons AND dragons, for f*&£'s sake!

I mean, would you expect the same lack of risk in a game called "Minefields and Guide Dogs"? The combination basically tells you that death is going to be a possibility.

Okay, this one made me laugh out loud.

Anyway, Titanium's post's encouraging - it sounds like the kind of thing I enjoy.

- Saph

Kioran

2008-03-12, 07:05 AM

No, a Mook is a narrative and perhaps mechanical construct, to convey that an /actual character/ has minions under their control. They're not people. At least, not in a sense as meaningful as a character is a person (Because characters aren't either; They too, are constructs. But they're constructs that do indeed behave like people). If they were meant to be characters, they wouldn't be the faceless, nameless soldiers or servitors of some real characters. They would be real characters. Perhaps they would be soldiers or servitors of another character just the same, but they would have goals, motivations and the like.

So you´re saying that, depending on their position in the story, not their power, those humanoids can be either mooks or minor NPCs, meaning htey gain detail when they get screentime. That makes sense, and it works very similiarly for me. I also do not even roll dice in some cases (do you kill the goblin children in the cave or not? Doesn´t require a roll, just a decision from ECL 5 upwards).
Problems arise with mooks gaining detail when the camera zooms up on them, however: If they become more human once the camera zooms in, this doesn´t imply they weren´t people/minor NPCs before, it implies that they were, but it wasn´t noticed. That guy charging me with a sword will be reduced to a meatsack with a sword, sure, independent of whether he´s a religious nut or a loving father or whatever. So that´s alright: unless I can experience this guy in another role, he´s a mook. That he does have a name once PCs start talking to him does, however, imply that all mooks have the potential to be revealed as people. Which brings me to:

2. There's not really much of a chance of a mook being lethal when I run things. If it doesn't have a name, it can't take you from living to dead; It can take you from living to negs, but not to dead. Even if it takes you to -10.
3. The armies in your worlds are very lax then, to allow soldiers to choose the orders they receive. Not that I can't see frightening the poor things off, but they won't choose to run immediately. Mook Chivalry seems to be wrapped up in the strange belief that they're genuinely threats to the heroes

Especially 2 is problematic: If every mook has the potential to be revealed as person, why do some people work different from others? I don´t quite see it. And even soldiers in an army will learn or be adpative. They´ll desert ranks, try different tactics and attempt other things if current tactics lead to their deaths. They´re, in a sense, people, ptherwise It´d be inconsistent if they started behaving like people only when the situation calls for it.
People, as long as some of them live to tell the tale, live and learn. Even Mar......er Meatsacks. If they can´t defeat the characters and witness this, they will start thinking whether it´s more risky to desert or fight.........

Matthew

2008-03-12, 08:10 AM

You must be really loving Borgstromancy in these discussions. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, I don't consider it a questionable approach. What I consider problematic is claiming that it's then part of the game, as the previous poster did, and as DnD does.

It's not part of the system (being a none systemised element), but I would still consider it part of the game.

By all means, support whatever you want. Just don't claim you support everything unless you then /do/.

Not following you here, I'm afraid.

Remember system shock rolls and the percent chance of resurrection spells failing outright?

Russian Roulette.

Some Gygaxian adventures took this to great lengths, but the structure he wrote into D&D was pretty much always one where players had a real (if not always large) chance of dying from things that it wasn't really within their power to prevent.

Note that for those of you who talk about "realism" including the chance that the PCs could catch dysentery, Gygax's AD&D DM Guide does have a table for that. Well, for generic categories of disease, anyway. It's practically the first thing in the book.

Spheres of Annihilation are not the only thing Gygax contributed to D&D*. Remember the percentile resurrection roll.

What about them? System Shock Rolls aren't much different from Saving Throws. They were pretty infrequently called for, as I recall. The only time I really remember having to use them was when when using Polymorph Other.

Indon

2008-03-12, 08:52 AM

What about them? System Shock Rolls aren't much different from Saving Throws. They were pretty infrequently called for, as I recall. The only time I really remember having to use them was when when using Polymorph Other.

Nah, with the exception of a few spells (Polymorph being one of them) system shock was the equivalent of the massive damage save. It didn't come up very often because AD&D had lower HP and damage than 3'rd edition, and so 50 damage didn't occur in a single hit as often (and when it did, it was often in and of itself devastating).

It was interesting, and it totally disproves that you need an absurdly difficult fight to kill characters.

From looking at your anecdote, it seems a good example of:

Secondly, tactical focus will break the game's CR system for most games (for any sufficiently complex tactical system as to be considered interesting by, well, any of us). The reason for this is the same as for the first - individuals will have differing levels of tactical ability.

So while Bob's kobolds are speedbumps which heap easy XP unto Bob's players, Tucker's kobolds will murder his party so many times he'll start tracking the Kobolds' experience from killing the PC's. The same works in converse for the players - My group, being collectively good at picking apart tactical problems, will go from level 1-30 (and presumably according to Mr. Hemmens, subsequently "win the game") quite easily, but if I were to play for a group of kids at the local comic shop, they'll be playing for years before they reach Paragon levels, for all I'd have to nerf the encounters - and subsequent XP, since you get XP per kill now.

Ironic that I used kobolds as an example.

But I'm sure that as players get used to the system, everything will become much less lethal - that was, after all, the first time they'd ever used the system, and the learning curve is apparently very fast. Then you may start to encounter some of the potential boredom-related problems, because of this:

I think that 4th edition certainly gives you the tools to kill characters, but I think that the primary causes of player death will be stupidity and over-level encounters as opposed to random criticals and save or sucks.

Your players will stop being stupid before long, meaning you'll need to intentionally kill them for their characters to have a non-negligable chance of death. Then they'll complain because, well, you intentionally killed the party.

Matthew

2008-03-12, 08:56 AM

Nah, with the exception of a few spells (Polymorph being one of them) system shock was the equivalent of the massive damage save. It didn't come up very often because AD&D had lower HP and damage than 3'rd edition, and so 50 damage didn't occur in a single hit as often (and when it did, it was often in and of itself devastating).

I think you're misremembering Indon. I don't see anything in the rulebooks about using System Shock rolls in that way. They were generally called for when a character's physical form underwent a significant magical change.

Indon

2008-03-12, 09:28 AM

I think you're misremembering Indon. I don't see anything in the rulebooks about using System Shock rolls in that way. They were generally called for when a character's physical form underwent a significant magical change.

Well, perhaps, but what did they call it then when you took over 50 damage from one hit?

Dervag

2008-03-12, 10:02 AM

Emphasis mine. That's what happens. The mooks came, they broke their weapons ont he PCs, and they got blown away. I don't even bother. Unless one of the players gets a very clever idea, in the style of The Princess Bride. At that point, the mooks can be interesting. And at that point, they comprise a stand alone encounter.I understand the reasoning. I just think that for me it would buckle my suspension of disbelief not to encounter any of the 'basic grunt' units while infiltrating a fortress full of troops, or traveling through a country occupied by an enemy army.

I wouldn't force heroes to bash their way through the entire army of mooks, but if they never see so much as a single patrol of the fellows something's a little off.

nagora

2008-03-12, 10:05 AM

Well, perhaps, but what did they call it then when you took over 50 damage from one hit?

"Ohh, stinger!" generally. There was no special game mechanic or rule for any particular amount of damage.

Remember system shock rolls and the percent chance of resurrection spells failing outright?

Russian Roulette.

Ah, no. You were already dead when the resurrection spell was cast, so actually the SS roll was to see if you got a magical and wholly unrealistic "extra go" or not. The exact opposite of Russian Roulette, really.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 10:15 AM

For the record, my D&D characters have had relationships and interactions, love affairs, children and the rest of it. But when they go into danger, all that just makes the struggle more worthwhile and surviving the danger makes the "domestic" stuff that much sweeter. I don't use it as an excuse for the DM to spare my character from death when things turns nasty. That just devalues all of it - the adventure and the characterisation.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, all my characterisation comes to nothing if I'm going to be rolling up a new character in two sessions' time.

Of course there are games that are harsher than others, and critical hit rules are generally badly designed IME, but it seems to me that what's actually wrong here is that you don't want to play a game at all.

You seem to want a story-telling exercise where nothing happens to disrupt your control of your character, or at least your conception of the character. That's fine, but it's not a game and to me at least it seems deadly dull and boring.

Not at all, I want a game in which I have some control over what happens to my character, particularly important things like "are they dead or not".

Yes, but those genres are "Chartered Accountancy RPGs" or "High School Adventures" or such like (actually, even then I doubt that your assertion holds true) but in a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" only a half-wit would expect that "folly would not carry the risk of death". You have dungeons AND dragons, for f*&£'s sake!

Bilbo Baggins manages to get by okay, so do most of the Fellowship of the Ring. Heroic Fantasy is actually exactly the sort of genre in which you expect people to do stupid stuff and not die. Otherwise Conan wouldn't get away with half the crap he does.

The point is that in a game of heroic fantasy, I want to be acting like a fantasy hero, not like - well like a character in a role playing game - I want to be able to stare into the Palantir, face down Sauron and not have the DM say "what, that's crazy - make a Will Save versus having your brain eaten". I want to be able to do crazy, dangerous **** and live to tell the tale, and I want whether I survive to be based on something other than how well I exploited my stat boosts at the last levelup.

I mean, would you expect the same lack of risk in a game called "Minefields and Guide Dogs"? The combination basically tells you that death is going to be a possibility.

A game that was literally just about walking blindly around a minefield until you blow up? No, I wouldn't expect a lack of risk in a game like that. I'd also expect such a game to be deadly boring. You might as well just sit down and roll dice until you get a 1, then stop.

Matthew

2008-03-12, 10:33 AM

Well, perhaps, but what did they call it then when you took over 50 damage from one hit?

"Ohh, stinger!" generally. There was no special game mechanic or rule for any particular amount of damage.

Death from Massive Damage was not part of the AD&D 1e Default Rule Set. It was part of the AD&D 2e Default Rule Set. As with D20, a character that takes 50+ damage from one hit was required to make a Saving Throw (in this case a Save versus Death) or die. I don't know if that was new with 2e or appeared in a 1e rules expansion or adventure module. As you say, though, it's would be uncommon for a character to receive 50+ points of damage in AD&D, and perhaps even more uncommon for that character to have 50+ Hit Points to begin with. Maybe a breath attack from a very powerful Dragon, a lucky Fireball spell or an unlucky fall.

nagora

2008-03-12, 10:44 AM

The point is that in a game of heroic fantasy, I want to be acting like a fantasy hero, not like - well like a character in a role playing game - I want to be able to stare into the Palantir, face down Sauron and not have the DM say "what, that's crazy - make a Will Save versus having your brain eaten". I want to be able to do crazy, dangerous **** and live to tell the tale, and I want whether I survive to be based on something other than how well I exploited my stat boosts at the last levelup.

So you admit that you don't want to play a role-playing-game character or have any challenges where you fail. So, what actually are you trying to say? That you don't like role-playing games? Okay; then don't play them!

Looking into the Palantir is neither dangerous or crazy (or interesting) if you know you'll live to tell the tale. It would even be bad writing in a book if the reader knew success was assured all the time.

I prefer to work up from low-levels, overcoming obsticles and challenges and having the character develop. But even playing a high-level characyer there's no interest in just having an Aragorn handed to me on a plate with a side order of Deus-Ex-Machina author's favour.

A game that was literally just about walking blindly around a minefield until you blow up? No, I wouldn't expect a lack of risk in a game like that. I'd also expect such a game to be deadly boring. You might as well just sit down and roll dice until you get a 1, then stop.

Much more interesting to re-roll until you get the result you need or you'll cry that the game's not like a book you once read where everyone (everyone important to you - sorry, Boromir) survives no matter how great the danger they pretend to face? Wise up.

If you go into the Lich's den, it is unreasonable to expect that there will not be things in there that might actually kill you. If you don't like that, then don't go in. Go home and write a short story about the guy who did go in and survived. Surely you'd be happier?

Indon

2008-03-12, 11:20 AM

I want to be able to stare into the Palantir, face down Sauron and not have the DM say "what, that's crazy - make a Will Save versus having your brain eaten".

You know what happens when you stare into a Palantir in 4'th edition?

Player: "I look into the big glowing thing."
DM: "You have established a link between you and Sauron. Sauron makes an attack through the connection and..." *rolls* "...handily beats your Will defense. You take a hundred damage."
Player: "But... that instantly kills me!"
DM: "He'd have charmed you instead, but that spell doesn't exist anymore - too easy to end combats quick with it. So instead he one-shotted you, 'cause he's high-epic and you're level 3."
DM (whispering to player): "Don't worry, when your character rises as a Wight in a few hours I'll let you play him."

It's no different - If anything earlier versions of D&D gave you a higher chance of surviving an encounter with Sauron, who so completely outclasses you as a level-appropriate PC that you have no chance of harming him, and he generally has but a 5% chance to not kill you instantly - at least in 3'rd edition he'd simply use Dominate Monster and your friends might be able to drag you back to sanity.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 11:45 AM

Problems arise with mooks gaining detail when the camera zooms up on them, however: If they become more human once the camera zooms in, this doesn´t imply they weren´t people/minor NPCs before, it implies that they were, but it wasn´t noticed. That guy charging me with a sword will be reduced to a meatsack with a sword, sure, independent of whether he´s a religious nut or a loving father or whatever. So that´s alright: unless I can experience this guy in another role, he´s a mook. That he does have a name once PCs start talking to him does, however, imply that all mooks have the potential to be revealed as people. Which brings me to:
No, they really weren't people before. That's my point. You become a person when you get a name, rather then getting a name because you're a person.

Especially 2 is problematic: If every mook has the potential to be revealed as person, why do some people work different from others? I don´t quite see it.
Because they're unimportant narratively. Just because one can become so later doesn't change that they aren't now.

And even soldiers in an army will learn or be adpative. They´ll desert ranks, try different tactics and attempt other things if current tactics lead to their deaths. They´re, in a sense, people, ptherwise It´d be inconsistent if they started behaving like people only when the situation calls for it. People, as long as some of them live to tell the tale, live and learn. Even Mar......er Meatsacks. If they can´t defeat the characters and witness this, they will start thinking whether it´s more risky to desert or fight.........

Sure, if and when they have previous knowledge, they /might/ prove to be innovative. They don't always, and they're usually not going to.

I understand the reasoning. I just think that for me it would buckle my suspension of disbelief not to encounter any of the 'basic grunt' units while infiltrating a fortress full of troops, or traveling through a country occupied by an enemy army.

I wouldn't force heroes to bash their way through the entire army of mooks, but if they never see so much as a single patrol of the fellows something's a little off.
I think we're talking past each other. Do you believe that mooks are, or are not, found when I run things?

It's not part of the system (being a none systemised element), but I would still consider it part of the game.
In the sense that arguing with the ref is part of sports, I suppose; It's an expected aspect of what occurs when you play the game, but it's not part of the game itself (That is, the system)

Not following you here, I'm afraid.

DnD claims that it can be used for any genre, any game style, any encounter system. The simple truth of the matter is, it's really only for combat and dungeon crawling (Not even exploration in the traditional sense, just dungeon crawling). It's fine that the game has a narrow focus. What's not fine is then claiming it has support for everything.

You know what happens when you stare into a Palantir in 4'th edition?
You recognize that he's discussing both 3rd and 4th ed as a negative, yes?

Indon

2008-03-12, 11:58 AM

You recognize that he's discussing both 3rd and 4th ed as a negative, yes?

But you're going to get your brain fried (well, really, charmed or dominated) no matter what system you try to look into a Palantir in, for the same reason you do not simply walk into Mordor. That's an attribute of Sauron, not the system.

Edit: The system governs only how accurately Sauron fries your brain.

Matthew

2008-03-12, 12:01 PM

In the sense that arguing with the ref is part of sports, I suppose; It's an expected aspect of what occurs when you play the game, but it's not part of the game itself (That is, the system)

Well, I think it's a little more integrated than that. Chess can be a roleplaying experience with a vivid enough imagination and willing participants, but I think D&D is supposed to have that element, rather than tha element being an unusual offshoot of the game.

DnD claims that it can be used for any genre, any game style, any encounter system. The simple truth of the matter is, it's really only for combat and dungeon crawling (Not even exploration in the traditional sense, just dungeon crawling). It's fine that the game has a narrow focus. What's not fine is then claiming it has support for everything.

Well... I take it you're meaning the D20 engine, rather than D&D 3e itself. Given the number of rulebooks published that attempt to adapt D20 to more genres, I think it's going a lttle far to see D&D as claiming it can be used for/in any genre. This, of course, is related to AD&D/D20 as Toolbox versus Complete Games and that's a fairly different discussion.

On the other hand, it's perfectly true to say that the D20 engine handles a lot of things badly and that adapting it to other genres is a struggle that is barely worth the effort.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 12:10 PM

But you're going to get your brain fried (well, really, charmed or dominated) no matter what system you try to look into a Palantir in, for the same reason you do not simply walk into Mordor. That's an attribute of Sauron, not the system.

Edit: The system governs only how accurately Sauron fries your brain.
Merry and Aragorn seem fine. Or was it Pippin? The books bored me so, I can never remember meaningless details like that.

Well, I think it's a little more integrated than that. Chess can be a roleplaying experience with a vivid enough imagination and willing participants, but I think D&D is supposed to have that element, rather than tha element being an unusual offshoot of the game.
Yeah, but it's not a codified aspect of the system. Like I said, you expect people to argue with the ref, but that doesn't mean that you have to teach people how to do it when you teach people about the game. I wouldn't play DnD without the roleplay, but that's because it's even more awful as a tactical minigame (Where balance is undeniably important).

horseboy

2008-03-12, 12:21 PM

Death from Massive Damage was not part of the AD&D 1e Default Rule Set. It was part of the AD&D 2e Default Rule Set. As with D20, a character that takes 50+ damage from one hit was required to make a Saving Throw (in this case a Save versus Death) or die. I don't know if that was new with 2e or appeared in a 1e rules expansion or adventure module. As you say, though, it's would be uncommon for a character to receive 50+ points of damage in AD&D, and perhaps even more uncommon for that character to have 50+ Hit Points to begin with. Maybe a breath attack from a very powerful Dragon, a lucky Fireball spell or an unlucky fall.Fall is correct. It came out of Spelljammer in the side bar "The hero that fell from the stars." because a high level fighter could survive reentry.

Matthew

2008-03-12, 12:24 PM

Yeah, but it's not a codified aspect of the system. Like I said, you expect people to argue with the ref, but that doesn't mean that you have to teach people how to do it when you teach people about the game. I wouldn't play DnD without the roleplay, but that's because it's even more awful as a tactical minigame (Where balance is undeniably important).

Hmmn. I agree that it's not a codified part of the system, but I do think it's part of the game that is supposed to be taught to new players. I guess it might just be me, but I do teach that aspect of the game (and, to be honest, I rarely bother explaining much in the way of the mechanics of the game, but then I don't play D20 that often either).

Fall is correct. It came out of Spelljammer in the side bar "The hero that fell from the stars." because a high level fighter could survive reentry.

Hee, hee. Spelljammer was post 2e wasn't it? Anyway, it had it's own crazy physics; a great game, but the designers obviously overlooked the 'you fell into lava, you did, no save, rule'.

Indon

2008-03-12, 12:30 PM

Merry and Aragorn seem fine. Or was it Pippin? The books bored me so, I can never remember meaningless details like that.

The brief exposure Pippin (I think it's him) had charmed him slightly, and that's considering that Hobbits have very significant bonuses in that environment against that sort of thing.

A good way to model the function of the Palantir would be to have a spell that implanted a weak charm effect, then got stronger with each successful application (perhaps starting at Suggestion, then moving up to outright Domination).

horseboy

2008-03-12, 12:42 PM

Hee, hee. Spelljammer was post 2e wasn't it? Anyway, it had it's own crazy physics; a great game, but the designers obviously overlooked the 'you fell into lava, you did, no save, rule'.Nope. Early to mid 2nd. It was discontinued before Options came out.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 12:55 PM

The brief exposure Pippin (I think it's him) had charmed him slightly, and that's considering that Hobbits have very significant bonuses in that environment against that sort of thing.

A good way to model the function of the Palantir would be to have a spell that implanted a weak charm effect, then got stronger with each successful application (perhaps starting at Suggestion, then moving up to outright Domination).

4th Ed has Charm effects too though. We do not know, at all, what their limits or guidelines are. We know they have been expanded.

nagora

2008-03-12, 12:57 PM

DnD claims that it can be used for any genre, any game style, any encounter system. The simple truth of the matter is, it's really only for combat and dungeon crawling (Not even exploration in the traditional sense, just dungeon crawling). It's fine that the game has a narrow focus. What's not fine is then claiming it has support for everything.

Well, it's fairer to say that the skill system added in 2ed is as totally inadequate at simulating real skills as it is fantasy skills. So in that sense, 2+ed supports all genres equally.

Combat and magic are the only areas which need real detail - one because there's no real-world model for the DM to work from, and the other because so much can happen in combat that you need a framework to manage it.

Talking to people, fixing carts, running up stairs, getting married, and all the other character-based stuff is only hobbled by detailed rules.

Indon

2008-03-12, 12:59 PM

4th Ed has Charm effects too though. We do not know, at all, what their limits or guidelines are. We know they have been expanded.

We do know that they're almost definitely going to be part of the universal save system, and no effect that has a chance of being shucked off every 6 or so seconds by just anyone can qualify as doing the corruption of Sauron's power justice (or, in fact, most charm-type effects that we see).

Rutee

2008-03-12, 01:01 PM

We do know that they're almost definitely going to be part of the universal save system, and no effect that has a chance of being shucked off every 6 or so seconds by just anyone can qualify as doing the corruption of Sauron's power justice (or, in fact, most charm-type effects that we see).

So what? What Sauron does is Save or Die, which rarely turns out interesting narratively when we apply it strictly to PCs.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 01:03 PM

So you admit that you don't want to play a role-playing-game character or have any challenges where you fail. So, what actually are you trying to say? That you don't like role-playing games? Okay; then don't play them!

I'm not saying I "don't want to" I'm saying I "don't". Because strange as it might seem to you, not all RPGs are D&D.

There are a great many games out there in which your character doesn't just arbitrarily die from a bad dice roll. There are a great many people who don't play RPGs for the "challenge".

Looking into the Palantir is neither dangerous or crazy (or interesting) if you know you'll live to tell the tale. It would even be bad writing in a book if the reader knew success was assured all the time.

Ah yes, the spoiler fallacy.

If knowing what was going to happen spoiled your enjoyment of a work of fiction, not only would nobody ever read a book twice, most people would never read them once.

A lot of books create the illusion that something might go wrong, but anybody who read the Lord of the Rings thinking that there was a chance Sauron would win was, well, shall we say they weren't paying close attention.

I prefer to work up from low-levels, overcoming obsticles and challenges and having the character develop. But even playing a high-level characyer there's no interest in just having an Aragorn handed to me on a plate with a side order of Deus-Ex-Machina author's favour.

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.

Much more interesting to re-roll until you get the result you need or you'll cry that the game's not like a book you once read where everyone (everyone important to you - sorry, Boromir) survives no matter how great the danger they pretend to face? Wise up.

Are you asking me whether I think "a game in which I decide what my character does and have a reasonable amount of control over what happens to him" is more interesting than "a game which consists of nothing but arbitrary dice rolls to see if my character is dead".

Why yes, yes I do.

If you go into the Lich's den, it is unreasonable to expect that there will not be things in there that might actually kill you. If you don't like that, then don't go in. Go home and write a short story about the guy who did go in and survived. Surely you'd be happier?

Not really, a short story is a solitary activity, roleplaying is a sociable one.

Yes, I might encounter some things that might kill me. I'd rather they didn't, thank you very much. I can think of fifty things that can happen in a Lich's den which are profoundly more interesting than "you die". Twenty-seven of them don't even include a risk of significant injury.

Indon

2008-03-12, 01:14 PM

Ah yes, the spoiler fallacy.
It's not a fallacy since plenty of people do enjoy something less when it's spoilered for them. SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE

If knowing what was going to happen spoiled your enjoyment of a work of fiction, not only would nobody ever read a book twice, most people would never read them once.
Or maybe part of the enjoyment of rereading is the nostalgia of reading it for the first time.

A lot of books create the illusion that something might go wrong, but anybody who read the Lord of the Rings thinking that there was a chance Sauron would win was, well, shall we say they weren't paying close attention.

What about someone who read it thinking Frodo might die in the process?

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 01:23 PM

It's not a fallacy since plenty of people do enjoy something less when it's spoilered for them. SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE

Sorry, I use the term "spoiler fallacy" to refer to the assumption a lot of people make that the point of a work of fiction is entirely to do with what happens next. It's the idea that somehow knowing that Character X does or does not die at a particular point makes a blind bit of difference.

Or maybe part of the enjoyment of rereading is the nostalgia of reading it for the first time.

Maybe it is. Or maybe, just maybe, there's more to books than just "what happens next".

What about someone who read it thinking Frodo might die in the process?

If they thought he'd die halfway through, they're a fool. If they thought he'd die at the end, they might have been right, but that's not what we're talking about.

Lord Lorac Silvanos

2008-03-12, 01:25 PM

I can think of fifty things that can happen in a Lich's den which are profoundly more interesting than "you die". Twenty-seven of them don't even include a risk of significant injury.

Obtaining the Lich Loved feat certainly makes for an interesting character development. :smallamused:

horseboy

2008-03-12, 01:48 PM

Obtaining the Lich Loved feat certainly makes for an interesting character development. :smallamused:
Jasmine (http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=33164653214%2014) appears to disagree.

nagora

2008-03-12, 01:49 PM

Ah yes, the spoiler fallacy.

If knowing what was going to happen spoiled your enjoyment of a work of fiction, not only would nobody ever read a book twice, most people would never read them once.

A lot of books create the illusion that something might go wrong, but anybody who read the Lord of the Rings thinking that there was a chance Sauron would win was, well, shall we say they weren't paying close attention.

No, but did we all know who was going to survive the ending? No. We re-read to re-live and to see what art we missed. "What happens next" is not all there is to a good book, but it is part of it.

I'm not saying I "don't want to" I'm saying I "don't". Because strange as it might seem to you, not all RPGs are D&D.

There are a great many games out there in which your character doesn't just arbitrarily die from a bad dice roll. 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.

You don't want to play a game at all. It's very simple - in a game YOU CAN LOSE. You don't want to lose (or can't handle losing or whatever).

What you want is normally called a "toy".

To criticise a game because it is a game is pointless. It's like criticising a race because you came fourth.

Again, if you can't handle role-playing games then just don't play them. And if you don't play them then don't moan at people who do just because they don't buy into your ego-stroking cant.

Winterwind

2008-03-12, 02:05 PM

What is it with you and "everyone has to play roleplaying games the way I play, and everyone who doesn't isn't playing at all, and should shut up and not touch this hobby at all, and is an ego-stroking narcist, and probably eats babies, too!", nagora? :smallconfused:

Is it so difficult to understand that, while you derive enjoyment from overcoming challenges, which is perfectly fine, others may derive more enjoyment from collective story-telling, or collective character exploration, which is just as perfectly fine? Because roleplaying games lend themselves to the latter form of entertainment pretty well, and saying that people who want to use them for something they are excellent for should not do it because they don't want roleplaying games - when it's quite obvious that, yes, in fact they do - well, doesn't seem very sensible to me, to be honest.

Matthew

2008-03-12, 02:09 PM

Nope. Early to mid 2nd. It was discontinued before Options came out.

That's what I mean . The Massive Damage Rule was written in 1989, so I don't think [I]Spelljammer can be directly responsible for its introduction, though it wouldn't surprise me to find some prototype of that setting was what inspired it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though?

Anyway, in my opinion, if your character falls out of a Spelljammer and through the atmosphere of a planet before impacting with the ground, he is dead, irrespective of his 150 Hit Points. No saving throw, no questions asked.

hamlet

2008-03-12, 02:25 PM

Merry and Aragorn seem fine. Or was it Pippin? The books bored me so, I can never remember meaningless details like that.

See, this is the kind of thing that irks me a bit.

Pippen was EXTREMELY lucky (i.e., that 5% chance of not dying or ending up like Denethor). Having a demi-god in the next bed certainly saved his bacon. He's a nothing compared to the likes of Aragorn, Boromir, and Gandalf. He doesn't follow D&D mechanics and if I had to tack those on, I'd probably put him at a 0-level hobbit, or maybe a 2nd or 3rd level thief.

Aragorn is another matter entirely and, if you understand the books you'd know why. He wasn't a "normal" human. The man was a king in his own right, had the blood of some of the greatest men in history flowing through his veins. He was above and beyond ordinary men. In short, he was something of an ubermensch. Divine right of kinds and all. He had the "right" to look into the Palantir and he had the chutzpa to do it.

Aragorn (and coincidentally Faramir, Boromir, Denethor, excluding obvious demi-god or angelic beings like Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron) are better than the average inhabitant of Middle Earth, and even then, Saruman managed to get himself into plenty of trouble when he went up against somebody of semi-equal power who wasn't pulling his punches. They're also, as we see when we compare them to the likes of the hobbits, above the average hero (what I'd call a PC).

horseboy

2008-03-12, 02:25 PM

That's what I mean . The Massive Damage Rule was written in 1989, so I don't think [I]Spelljammer can be directly responsible for its introduction, though it wouldn't surprise me to find some prototype of that setting was what inspired it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, though?Well, it's certainly possible it was something buried in that &^%$ book that I never saw (like so many other things). But it defiantly was the first time I noticed it.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 02:41 PM

See, this is the kind of thing that irks me a bit.

Pippen was EXTREMELY lucky (i.e., that 5% chance of not dying or ending up like Denethor). Having a demi-god in the next bed certainly saved his bacon. He's a nothing compared to the likes of Aragorn, Boromir, and Gandalf. He doesn't follow D&D mechanics and if I had to tack those on, I'd probably put him at a 0-level hobbit, or maybe a 2nd or 3rd level thief.

Aragorn is another matter entirely and, if you understand the books you'd know why. He wasn't a "normal" human. The man was a king in his own right, had the blood of some of the greatest men in history flowing through his veins. He was above and beyond ordinary men. In short, he was something of an ubermensch. Divine right of kinds and all. He had the "right" to look into the Palantir and he had the chutzpa to do it.

Aragorn (and coincidentally Faramir, Boromir, Denethor, excluding obvious demi-god or angelic beings like Gandalf, Saruman, and Sauron) are better than the average inhabitant of Middle Earth, and even then, Saruman managed to get himself into plenty of trouble when he went up against somebody of semi-equal power who wasn't pulling his punches. They're also, as we see when we compare them to the likes of the hobbits, above the average hero (what I'd call a PC).

This is why Save or Die isn't interesting when handled strictly, from a story perspective. Imagine if Tolkien had said "The hobbits need to roll a 20 to not be mind slaves". And then actually rolled the dice. The odds are extremely likely that they would be mind slaves. Which coincidentally was entirely my point.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 02:49 PM

No, but did we all know who was going to survive the ending? No. We re-read to re-live and to see what art we missed. "What happens next" is not all there is to a good book, but it is part of it.

Sometimes it is. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet blows the ending in the opening scene.

The point is that sometimes the fun of a game is "are we going to win this fight" and sometimes it's "when we win this fight, will my sister still be speaking to me?"

You don't want to play a game at all. It's very simple - in a game YOU CAN LOSE. You don't want to lose (or can't handle losing or whatever).

It is ironic, I think, that people take it as axiomatic that you can't lose an RPG (see the arguments on the balance thread), but that the moment you take this to its logical conclusion and actually take the "losing" out of the game, people have hissy fits.

I can handle losing just fine. I just don't expect it to happen in a game which everybody insists you can't lose at.

What you want is normally called a "toy".

To criticise a game because it is a game is pointless. It's like criticising a race because you came fourth.

Actually, it's more like criticizing a race which proudly says "there are no winners or losers in this race, the point of this race is to have fun running around, nobody cares who finishes first or last" because I came in fourth and they threw dung on me as a result.

It's like complaining because, after my Seraphim squad got wiped out in a 40K game, my opponent dipped the models in white spirit so I had to paint the damned things all over again.

Again, if you can't handle role-playing games then just don't play them. And if you don't play them then don't moan at people who do just because they don't buy into your ego-stroking cant.

Please stop with all the "can't handle it" crap. I understand that you have fun playing games where your character sometimes dies for no good reason. So do I, in fact. I sometimes really enjoy a good old linear dungeon bash. I'm secretly rather fond of the way Traveller can kill you in character creation as well.

It is not, however, my preferred style of roleplaying. If you "can't handle" the fact that other people play games for different reasons to you, and that some people actually don't think that the risk of arbitrary death is a necessary or sufficient condition for an enjoyable game experience, then that is your problem, not mine.

hamlet

2008-03-12, 02:53 PM

This is why Save or Die isn't interesting when handled strictly, from a story perspective. Imagine if Tolkien had said "The hobbits need to roll a 20 to not be mind slaves". And then actually rolled the dice. The odds are extremely likely that they would be mind slaves. Which coincidentally was entirely my point.

Yeah, but here's the thing: Lord of the Rings and D&D are two different things entirely with two different gensis . . .es (genesai?) and two different purposes.

Lord of the Rings was, in its inception, the author's attempt to tell an "English and Germanic" myth: not actually about England or Germany, but containing the tropes, ideals, and customs of those earlier myths. It was a story and, as such, each part of it served a purpose as part of the story. Pippen's almost succumbing to the Palantir (or, more precisely, Sauron's will exercised through the Palantir) and, coincidentally, Denethor and Saruman's failures both of whom were of much sterner stuff than the hobbit, was meant to highlight the extreme accomplishment that it was for Aragorn to use it successfully and keep his mind intact. It was probably a meaningless detail to you, but if you'll recall, after he had done it, Aragorn was physically aged from the effort.

D&D, on the other hand, is a game. Yes, that game can be used to tell stories and, IMO, the game is at its best when the players are telling the story and moving beyond the rules. However, in the end, it is still a game, and that means that it carries the real chance of dying, often ignominiously. I'd be ashamed to tell you how many characters I've had die in alarmingly stupid ways (being teleported 200+ feet into the air by a Drider and having no way of safely descending springs to mind), but I can say that each and every one of those deaths was fun and that none of them were meaningless. They all happened while the character (and the player) were pursuing higher goals. The catch is, not everybody gets to make it to major hero land and that's the alure, that it takes skill and lots of luck to make it to being a recognized hero.

From what I can tell, 4th edition is trying to move to a place where, by virtue of being, the PC's are already heros and "shouldn't" die if it's detrimental to the pre-planned story. You know, that kind of planning makes me a bit ill.

Yes, I'll admit that fudging on behalf of really stupid results (like tripping down a flight of stairs and breaking your neck because you didn't tie your shoe), but the idea that my character's well being depends on luck rather than divine right of the PC really appeals. If I wanted a situation where the character succeeds and I know that he/she will, I'd go read a book.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 02:57 PM

I, as well, find the description of the 4e combat encouraging. I like tactics and strategy in my combat, and this seems to have that. If I wanted things as random as some people in this thread do, we might as well just sit down and roll d20s until somebody gets a 20, at which point the other guy dies instantly with no save, and that sounds g******ed boring to me.

You know what happens when you stare into a Palantir in 4'th edition?

Player: "I look into the big glowing thing."
DM: "You have established a link between you and Sauron. Sauron makes an attack through the connection and..." *rolls* "...handily beats your Will defense. You take a hundred damage."
Player: "But... that instantly kills me!"
DM: "He'd have charmed you instead, but that spell doesn't exist anymore - too easy to end combats quick with it. So instead he one-shotted you, 'cause he's high-epic and you're level 3."
DM (whispering to player): "Don't worry, when your character rises as a Wight in a few hours I'll let you play him."

It's no different - If anything earlier versions of D&D gave you a higher chance of surviving an encounter with Sauron, who so completely outclasses you as a level-appropriate PC that you have no chance of harming him, and he generally has but a 5% chance to not kill you instantly - at least in 3'rd edition he'd simply use Dominate Monster and your friends might be able to drag you back to sanity.
This is a blatant, flat-out strawman, because the exact same thing can happen in 3rd Edition:

Player: "I look into the big glowing thing."
DM: "The artifact establishes a link between you and Sauron. He uses this connection to cast quickened Prismatic Sphere inside your body and then Power Word Kill on you for good measure."
Player: "But... that instantly kills me!"
DM (whispering to player): "Don't worry, when your character rises as a Wight in a few hours I'll let you play him."

Edit: And before you respond, do realize that this entire situation already has more DM fiat than can be described. An artifact is forcing a low-level character into a contest of wills against a virtual deity. If the DM has already screwed the rules that far, saying "roll a 20 or be charmed" is nothing, regardless of system.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 02:58 PM

I don't know where you're getting "It's a game, and therefore, people die" from. When you play Basketball, the winners don't have the right to execute the losers. I speculate that there would be a lot fewer basketball games if this were the case. It's a game, and therefore, you can lose, certainly. Dying is not the only logical conclusion which can be had from losing, and is often the less interesting one. Nobody's saying "PCs win on virtue of being PCs all the time". They're saying that PCs don't die all the time, by virtue of PCs being PCs. At least, that's my argument.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 03:05 PM

D&D, on the other hand, is a game. Yes, that game can be used to tell stories and, IMO, the game is at its best when the players are telling the story and moving beyond the rules. However, in the end, it is still a game, and that means that it carries the real chance of dying, often ignominiously. I'd be ashamed to tell you how many characters I've had die in alarmingly stupid ways (being teleported 200+ feet into the air by a Drider and having no way of safely descending springs to mind), but I can say that each and every one of those deaths was fun and that none of them were meaningless. They all happened while the character (and the player) were pursuing higher goals. The catch is, not everybody gets to make it to major hero land and that's the alure, that it takes skill and lots of luck to make it to being a recognized hero.

You like to play like that. I do not like to play like that.

But I'll echo Rutee here. Where are people getting this idea that Game == Death.

Is Monopoly "not a game" because you can't get shanked in gaol? Is Cluedo "not a game" because only an NPC gets killed in it?

And for that matter, why is the chance of death so sacred, when the chance of dismemberment, crippling injury or infirmity has been so utterly removed from the system? Why is a game where my character can be crippled but not die "ego stroking and wish fulfillment" whereas one where my character can die but not be crippled is mature and meaningful?

Indon

2008-03-12, 03:09 PM

This is a blatant, flat-out strawman, because the exact same thing can happen in 3rd Edition:

The only thing I said about the comparison was "At least in 3'rd edition Sauron would use Dominate Person (Well, I said 'monster', cause he's Sauron and dominates all sorts of things)," which isn't instadeath. Do you think 4'th edition will have a spell as powerful as Dominate Person?

Is Monopoly "not a game" because you can't get shanked in gaol?

When you land on a Hotel-populated Boardwalk, that's being shanked.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 03:14 PM

The only thing I said about the comparison was "At least in 3'rd edition Sauron would use Dominate Person (Well, I said 'monster', cause he's Sauron and dominates all sorts of things)," which isn't instadeath. Do you think 4'th edition will have a spell as powerful as Dominate Person?
Like I said in my edit, it doesn't matter one d*** bit. The DM has already thrown the rules so far out the window merely setting up the situation that saying "roll a 20 or be dominated" is literally no different than the guy at the other end casting a spell to that effect.

To reiterate: the DM is already saying "roll a 20 or be dominated". It's just that in 3e, it takes a few more words to do so.

Edit: I mean seriously, talk about a double standard. A 3e DM is allowed to do whatever he pleases and pull stuff out of his rear to throw at the party, but a 4e DM must adhere to the rules at all costs? Puh-LEASE!

Indon

2008-03-12, 03:16 PM

Like I said in my edit, it doesn't matter one d*** bit. The DM has already thrown the rules so far out the window merely setting up the situation that saying "roll a 20 or be dominated" is literally no different than the guy at the other end casting a spell to that effect.

To reiterate: the DM is already saying "roll a 20 or be dominated". It's just that in 3e, it takes a few more words to do so.

And when it was pointed out that the statement was a critique of both 3'rd and 4'th editions of D&D, I clarified by pointing out that it was Sauron that was dangerous, not the system.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 03:19 PM

And when it was pointed out that the statement was a critique of both 3'rd and 4'th editions of D&D, I clarified by pointing out that it was Sauron that was dangerous, not the system.
"At least in 3rd edition, your friends have a chance to drag you back to sanity"

You've already thrown the rules out the window wholesale and run five miles from where the book landed, what's to stop you from scooting another three inches to let the players drag their comrade back to sanity?

Oh, that's right, 4e DMs aren't allowed to deviate from the rules in any way, shape, or form, while 3e DMs can do whatever they like.

Indon

2008-03-12, 03:25 PM

"At least in 3rd edition, your friends have a chance to drag you back to sanity"

Dominate spells have conditions in which the spell grants additional saves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html).

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 03:27 PM

When you land on a Hotel-populated Boardwalk, that's being shanked.

No, I don't mean metaphorically, I mean literally.

Why is an RPG in which you cannot die "not a game". You can't die in Cludeo or Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, why is death so almighty important all of a sudden.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 03:30 PM

Dominate spells have conditions in which the spell grants additional saves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0524.html).
So what's stopping a 4e DM from granting the character conditions in which he has additional chances to break free from his hand of god "roll a 20 or be f***ed" fiat ruling?

He's already introduced an artifact, an enemy who is probably at least ten times the target's level, and not given the character any warning of what's ahead, just so that he can try to justify saying "roll a 20 or be dominated". The DM is already doing whatever he pleases, and saying that it's a casting of Dominate Monster is just a way to try to pretty it up so that his players don't immediately lynch him.

The 3e DM has already thrown the rules out the window.

So why is the 4e DM not allowed to do the same? Why is the 4e DM not allowed to do whatever he pleases to the party? If he wants the target to have a chance to break free, he gives the target a chance to break free, with the only difference being that he doesn't try to BS his players into thinking it's anything else.

So tell me, why must a 4e DM be constrained by limitations that you are so willing to throw to the wind for a 3e DM?

Edit: quote's formatting got messed up

Indon

2008-03-12, 03:42 PM

He's already introduced an artifact, an enemy who is probably at least ten times the target's level, and not given the character any warning of what's ahead, just so that he can try to justify saying "roll a 20 or be dominated". The DM is already doing whatever he pleases, and saying that it's a casting of Dominate Monster is just a way to try to pretty it up so that his players don't immediately lynch him.

The 3e DM has already thrown the rules out the window.

There's nothing in the rules that says, "DM's can't use artifacts, really powerful BBEG's, or punish players for attempting to examine unidentified magical items."

There is something in the rules that says there are circumstances in which you can get an extra save against Dominate Person.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 03:45 PM

No, I don't mean metaphorically, I mean literally.

Why is an RPG in which you cannot die "not a game". You can't die in Cludeo or Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, why is death so almighty important all of a sudden.Because Monopoly and Clue don't involve combat. Death is a repercussion of combat. If I'm not facing the repercussions of my actions, am I actually making a choice?

Deepblue706

2008-03-12, 03:45 PM

No, I don't mean metaphorically, I mean literally.

Why is an RPG in which you cannot die "not a game". You can't die in Cludeo or Monopoly or Settlers of Catan, why is death so almighty important all of a sudden.

Well, I think Monopoly is more about "business", so thus death isn't explicitly noted in the gameplay. I think it would be interesting to get a Chance card that said "Your partner has a hitman kill you, and through his mastermind scheme takes your money. Pass all assets to the player to your right, and leave the table, dorkwad.", though.

RPGs often involve fighting. I think, when you get into a fight, it's not really a fight unless you can lose. And sure, you can lose and not die - but I think there's only so many times that happens before a player says, "Wait, how am I not dead by now?" Sure, a lot of people ignore this in videogame RPGs like Final Fantasy (as some minor magical items or healing can bring you back in no time, so long as your death isn't part of the storyline, or something) - but I personally find that sometimes an increased risk is refreshing. It may not be something right for default play, but I firmly believe it should be supported as an alternative for certain kinds of games. A DM can houserule away, but most aren't quite game designers - which makes creating a method of play like this that satisfies everyone involved something very hard to do.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 03:51 PM

Because Monopoly and Clue don't involve combat. Death is a repercussion of combat. If I'm not facing the repercussions of my actions, am I actually making a choice?

Death is one possible repercussion of combat. So is serious injury, maiming, crippling. None of these things are modeled in D&D.

Combat can cause you to grow hardened, calloused, less concerned about the lives of your fellow men. It can exact a psychological toll. This isn't modeled in D&D.

Killing somebody might have repercussions for their friends and family, their dependents, this isn't modeled in D&D. It might carry a social stigma that I have to live with. This isn't modeled in D&D.

Of all of the thousands of possible consequences of combat, why is death and death alone so important that it has to be governed by the system? Why is it impossible for your actions to have meaning just because the dice cannot declare you dead?

Artanis

2008-03-12, 03:53 PM

There's nothing in the rules that says, "DM's can't use artifacts, really powerful BBEG's, or punish players for attempting to examine unidentified magical items."

There is something in the rules that says there are circumstances in which you can get an extra save against Dominate Person.
So because you can weasel your way into using the Air Bud clause to justify it makes it anything less than the DM saying, "rocks fall, the hobbit dies...or might as well"?

Titanium Dragon

2008-03-12, 03:54 PM

Your players will stop being stupid before long, meaning you'll need to intentionally kill them for their characters to have a non-negligable chance of death. Then they'll complain because, well, you intentionally killed the party.

Well, this wasn't my usual group of players in the first place. And frankly, I don't want PCs to die very often at all unless they made a mistake or the encounter is overleveled; those are the times I WANT them to have the strong possibilty of death. I mean, there's obviously still the possibility of death otherwise, but here's the thing:

You're arguing that PC death should be totally random and out of the control of the players and the DM. That is your argument. I think that's a horrible way to play D&D, because it removes control from the players and the DM. They should be able to modify their own destiny; if they make a mistake or choose to fight something which is dangerous (like the dragon encounter or something similar) then they made the concious decision to put themselves at a greater level of risk.

Normal encounters CAN kill players if they aren't careful, and that's what is important to me. Overlevelled encounters WILL kill characters if they aren't careful, and that is also important to me. And making mistakes increases the chances of dying dramatically, which is also okay with me.

In every single fight in my adventure at least one character was knocked unconcious. I personally feel that level of danger is more than adequete, and I think most people would agree with me.

Well, perhaps, but what did they call it then when you took over 50 damage from one hit?

Dying? Most classes couldn't survive a 50 hp hit. But yes, you'd have to make a system shock roll, and IIRC if you failed raise dead or something wouldn't work on you, either, adding insult to injury.

And yes, polymorph other was "balanced" by the fact that if you cast it on someone they had a non-negligable chance of dying.

Pippen was EXTREMELY lucky (i.e., that 5% chance of not dying or ending up like Denethor). Having a demi-god in the next bed certainly saved his bacon. He's a nothing compared to the likes of Aragorn, Boromir, and Gandalf. He doesn't follow D&D mechanics and if I had to tack those on, I'd probably put him at a 0-level hobbit, or maybe a 2nd or 3rd level thief.

Thing is, the degree to which he was lucky is somewhat questionable; he's a hobbit, and hobbits are remarked on several occaisions to be incredibly and especially resistant to such things. Gollum, Frodo, and Bilbo were all incredibly resistant to the effects of the ring, and Bilbo actually gave up the One Ring willingly - the first person in the history of ever to do so, though both Frodo and Sam do so as well.

And Indron, quit making your argument; it is clear you don't actually have a point, or if you do, you aren't communicating it clearly (or you are, and everyone is correctly seeing your "I can pull DM fiat in every system!" argument, and you aren't understanding why it is a bad one).

Matthew

2008-03-12, 04:03 PM

Dying? Most classes couldn't survive a 50 hp hit. But yes, you'd have to make a system shock roll, and IIRC if you failed raise dead or something wouldn't work on you, either, adding insult to injury.

No. As mentioned above, System Shock was used for magical transformations. In AD&D 2e, if you took 50+ HP you made a save versus death.

And yes, polymorph other was "balanced" by the fact that if you cast it on someone they had a non-negligable chance of dying.

I don't think notions of 'balance' had anything to do with it. The spell was just dangerous, better for using on enemies than friends, but you could negate the chance of dying if you had means to temporarily raise a character's Constitution score to 25 (18-24 have a 99% chance of success). On the other hand, Polymorph Self didn't require a System Shock roll.

Indon

2008-03-12, 04:07 PM

So because you can weasel your way into using the Air Bud clause to justify it makes it anything less than the DM saying, "rocks fall, the hobbit dies...or might as well"?

DM: Well, maybe if I put it prominently in the corrupted Wizard's study, and make it look pretty, the players will correctly identify it as a powerful magical artifact and wait for Gandalf to look at it.
DM (to players): All right, you find a big, obviously magical artifact-thing in the middle of the corrupted Wizard's study.
Player: I fiddle with it and see what happens!

That's not "rocks fall".

And Indron, quit making your argument; it is clear you don't actually have a point, or if you do, you aren't communicating it clearly (or you are, and everyone is correctly seeing your "I can pull DM fiat in every system!" argument, and you aren't understanding why it is a bad one).

Did you read the list of points, which I put in bold so that people wouldn't miss them, earlier in this thread about downsides to lower combat risk and a shift towards emphasis on tactics? I even cited one in a quote when discussing your point, but you haven't commented.

In fact, I don't think anyone has. Have I been missing them?

If you're commenting on how Dan_Hemmens doesn't think that looking into the Palantir should be dangerous, I think you may have a good point in regards to the natural resistance to corruption shared by Hobbits, but still, that's (the Palantir being dangerous) not something which happens due to a system - it happens due to the story, and is expressed by the system.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 04:09 PM

DM: Well, maybe if I put it prominently in the corrupted Wizard's study, and make it look pretty, the players will correctly identify it as a powerful magical artifact and wait for Gandalf to look at it.
DM (to players): All right, you find a big, obviously magical artifact-thing in the middle of the corrupted Wizard's study.
Player: I fiddle with it and see what happens!

That's not "rocks fall".
The 3e version:

DM: Well, maybe if I put it prominently in the corrupted Wizard's study, and make it look pretty, the players will correctly identify it as a powerful magical artifact and wait for Gandalf to look at it.
DM (to players): All right, you find a big, obviously magical artifact-thing in the middle of the corrupted Wizard's study.
Player: I fiddle with it and see what happens!
DM: Roll a 20 or be dominated.

4e version:

DM: Well, maybe if I put it prominently in the corrupted Wizard's study, and make it look pretty, the players will correctly identify it as a powerful magical artifact and wait for Gandalf to look at it.
DM (to players): All right, you find a big, obviously magical artifact-thing in the middle of the corrupted Wizard's study.
Player: I fiddle with it and see what happens!
DM: Roll a 20 or be dominated.

I fail to see a difference.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 04:10 PM

Death is one possible repercussion of combat. So is serious injury, maiming, crippling. None of these things are modeled in D&D.And one of the many reasons I don't like D&D combat.

Combat can cause you to grow hardened, calloused, less concerned about the lives of your fellow men. It can exact a psychological toll. This isn't modeled in D&D.Oh, but it does. DM: "Down the road are two orcs-" PC: "I kill it."

Killing somebody might have repercussions for their friends and family, their dependents, this isn't modeled in D&D. It might carry a social stigma that I have to live with. This isn't modeled in D&D.Only if the DM chooses not to use them as plot hooks. I know I have (admittedly in other systems, but it's not like I need a system to tell me the chieftan's daughter wants revenge.

Of all of the thousands of possible consequences of combat, why is death and death alone so important that it has to be governed by the system? Why is it impossible for your actions to have meaning just because the dice cannot declare you dead?Because it's an impartial 3rd party.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 04:19 PM

Only if the DM chooses not to use them as plot hooks. I know I have (admittedly in other systems, but it's not like I need a system to tell me the chieftan's daughter wants revenge.

Nor do you need a system to tell you my character is dead or alive. That's exactly my point. Combat has myriad potential consequences, none of which you need to have ingrained in the system. Except, apparently, for death. Why the double standard?

Because it's an impartial 3rd party.

Exactly. I don't let the rules decide whether my character is traumatized by the violence he witnesses, I don't let them decide whether the chieftan's daughter wants revenge. Why should I let it decide whether I get to carry on playing my character or not?

Indon

2008-03-12, 04:33 PM

I fail to see a difference.

Firstly, attackers always roll in D&D - the player probably doesn't even get to know that the DM had to roll a 1. Secondly, I doubt Domination exists in 4'th edition (it's powerful, comparable to summoning which we know they've scrapped entirely), which is why I made the example damage instead, and commented on the distinction in the scenarios.

Exactly. I don't let the rules decide whether my character is traumatized by the violence he witnesses, I don't let them decide whether the chieftan's daughter wants revenge. Why should I let it decide whether I get to carry on playing my character or not?
Well, if you want it like that, then you should play a freeform RPG, rather than one with rules for resolution of actions... or, alternately, just ignore the rules for combat and freeform just that.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 04:40 PM

Nor do you need a system to tell you my character is dead or alive. That's exactly my point. Combat has myriad potential consequences, none of which you need to have ingrained in the system. Except, apparently, for death. Why the double standard?
Exactly. I don't let the rules decide whether my character is traumatized by the violence he witnesses, I don't let them decide whether the chieftan's daughter wants revenge. Why should I let it decide whether I get to carry on playing my character or not?
Because Godmode bores me. Without death there's no challenge in combat. If I'm not going to die until I want to I am going to get bored quiet quickly. I'm not going to say "My character dies here," because that's quitting and I'm too stubborn to quit. If I won't quit, and the DM can't make me quit, then there needs to be a 3rd party that's uninvolved to make me quit.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 04:44 PM

Firstly, attackers always roll in D&D - the player probably doesn't even get to know that the DM had to roll a 1. Secondly, I doubt Domination exists in 4'th edition (it's powerful, comparable to summoning which we know they've scrapped entirely), which is why I made the example damage instead, and commented on the distinction in the scenarios.
But the sheer vastness of the level of DM fiat means there is no distinction in the scenarios.

In the 3e scenario, the DM is doing nothing more than giving the character a 95% chance of being dominated, mechanics be damned, and dressing it up to look pretty. A 4e DM is just as capable of doing the exact same thing, with the only exception being that he needs to find a different way to dress it up to look pretty.

nagora

2008-03-12, 05:01 PM

{Scrubbed}

Rutee

2008-03-12, 05:02 PM

Because Godmode bores me. Without death there's no challenge in combat. If I'm not going to die until I want to I am going to get bored quiet quickly. I'm not going to say "My character dies here," because that's quitting and I'm too stubborn to quit. If I won't quit, and the DM can't make me quit, then there needs to be a 3rd party that's uninvolved to make me quit.

Death isn't a very neutral third party when your GM can fudge damage.

And you're confusing "I won't die" with "Godmode".

Again; Nobody says you can't lose. Merely that loss does not equal death.

Again, games don't require death.

Ralfarius

2008-03-12, 05:06 PM

But wait!

If the 4E rules stipulate that when you die, you are dead and unable to perform any actions, then the death rules are more dangerous than 3.X! Oh sweet mercy, now I'm worried.

Indon

2008-03-12, 05:23 PM

But the sheer vastness of the level of DM fiat means there is no distinction in the scenarios.

Designing a campaign is a use of DM fiat? Well, I can't really argue with that, but it is a different kind of application of it than modifying the rules or creating new abilities.

And Pippin snatched an obvious magical artifact without knowing what it did. In terms of this thread, how doesn't that fall under, "the character did something stupid" in which most people have agreed they deserve to die.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 05:26 PM

In fact, dying is the only way to be put out of an RPG, Well, dying and OPD. :smallwink:

Death isn't a very neutral third party when your GM can fudge damage.Not death, dice are the neutral third party.

And you're confusing "I won't die" with "Godmode".I fail to see a difference. If I can't die, then where is the challenge for me?

ShadowSiege

2008-03-12, 05:32 PM

In fact, dying is the only way to be put out of an RPG, which is why it is important not to remove it as a possibility. Otherwise there is no ultimate challenge - character's struggles are meaningless because they can always have another go, and another, and another, and another, and another...

The problem with the argument you're making is that in D&D, death does not mean you've lost. 9th level and up, 10 minutes of casting and 5k gp of diamond dust and you're back on your feet, a little bit weaker, but still alive (maybe not doing science or eating cake, but still alive). After that point, for death to be the end condition of a character it would require a TPK, a death effect (this is removed upon gaining access to Resurrection) or a Sphere of Annihilation-like effect.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 05:33 PM

Designing a campaign is a use of DM fiat? Well, I can't really argue with that, but it is a different kind of application of it than modifying the rules or creating new abilities.

And Pippin snatched an obvious magical artifact without knowing what it did. In terms of this thread, how doesn't that fall under, "the character did something stupid" in which most people have agreed they deserve to die.
Quit trying to change the subject. Nobody said anything about a campaign, just the one, single encounter that you described.

The one, single encounter that you ALSO said, by the way, was categorically impossible in 4e. THAT is the discussion at hand, so stop trying to drag things away from it.

You said that having Pippen dominated via the palantir is possible in 3e but not possible in 4e. You said that the Air Bud clause let you use a slew of "doesn't say you CAN'T use" a whole bunch of deus ex machina plot devices...aka DM fiat out the wazoo. And ever since then, you have vigorously defended your position that in 4e, a DM will not be allowed to use DM fiat out the wazoo, that he must adhere to the book, word for word, rather than simply using DM fiat the same way the 3e DM did to create the one. Single. Encounter.

Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the question:
Why is a 3e DM allowed to use DM fiat, but a 4e DM can't ever do so?

Kioran

2008-03-12, 05:38 PM

No, they really weren't people before. That's my point. You become a person when you get a name, rather then getting a name because you're a person.

Because they're unimportant narratively. Just because one can become so later doesn't change that they aren't now.

Sure, if and when they have previous knowledge, they /might/ prove to be innovative. They don't always, and they're usually not going to.

Well, there´s really not much I can say at this point - you have openly admitted being inconsistent in your portrayal of NPCs and the environment for the sake of your playstyle in the past, and that´s what you´re doing here as well. At this point, there´s little left to argue about - I strongly disagree with the attitude, but you do this knowingly.

Just the same with the character death thing - unless there´s something serious on the line, it is a form of godmode/character shield. Which you openly admitted using (unlike Dan Hemmens). Well yeah. I really wouldn´t want to play that way, but that´s all I can say that hasn´t already been said.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 05:44 PM

{Scrubbed}

Rutee

2008-03-12, 05:47 PM

I fail to see a difference. If I can't die, then where is the challenge for me?

There is no correlation between the challenge present, and the stakes. I go to a poker table, and play with whoever's there; Whether we use money, or plastic chips that don't mean anything, it doesn't change the challenge whatsoever, only what I stand to gain or lose.

Put another way, you can play soccer with two people; David Beckham, or an invalid child who is not a legitimate opponent. If you play with Beckham and lose, you face the agony and shame of defeat, but nothing more. If you lose to the child, you die. Which is more challenging? Which has higher stakes?

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 05:54 PM

I fail to see a difference. If I can't die, then where is the challenge for me?

In everything else.

Put simply, I don't consider "don't die" to be an interesting challenge. It casts the PC as an utterly passive creature, whose only interesting decision is to die or not to die (like Boromir's player in DM of the Rings).

If I'm trying to forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure, the challenge before me is to ... well ... forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure. Do I really need to add "and also have a couple of fights, in which I might get killed" in order to make it into a real challenge?

horseboy

2008-03-12, 06:07 PM

There is no correlation between the challenge present, and the stakes. I go to a poker table, and play with whoever's there; Whether we use money, or plastic chips that don't mean anything, it doesn't change the challenge whatsoever, only what I stand to gain or lose.

Put another way, you can play soccer with two people; David Beckham, or an invalid child who is not a legitimate opponent. If you play with Beckham and lose, you face the agony and shame of defeat, but nothing more. If you lose to the child, you die. Which is more challenging? Which has higher stakes?Well, given that I don't know how to play soccer or how good this "Beckham" person is (since clearly he's not Ditka cool), I'm going with your first analogy.
That is the fundamental break down. If I go to play poker and it's not for stakes then my attention will wonder off and I won't be interested enough in the game. Sure I could compensate with copious amounts of alcohol to dull myself down to where it does take all my attention to keep focused (and do also when I play D&D) on the game, but for me, it's just not fun to play that way. I could have the accomplishment of telling the story, or I could have the accomplishments of telling the story AND actually having a 16th level Rolemaster character that's survived that long with no GM-gimmies. Personally I much rather accomplish two things at once.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 06:08 PM

Well, given that I don't know how to play soccer or how good this "Beckham" person is (since clearly he's not Ditka cool), I'm going with your first analogy.
Beckham is one of the best in the world, just FYI :smallwink:

nagora

2008-03-12, 06:12 PM

{Scrubbed}

horseboy

2008-03-12, 06:13 PM

If I'm trying to forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure, the challenge before me is to ... well ... forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure. Do I really need to add "and also have a couple of fights, in which I might get killed" in order to make it into a real challenge?That's one challenge. Now do it in a dangerous setting where you might actually be killed, and still accomplish it all, now you've got 2 challenges. You accomplish twice as much.

nagora

2008-03-12, 06:17 PM

If I'm trying to forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure, the challenge before me is to ... well ... forge the several races of the world into a last desperate alliance against the Dark Lord before he cloaks the land in night and destroys all that is good and pure. Do I really need to add "and also have a couple of fights, in which I might get killed" in order to make it into a real challenge?

And who decides if you succeed? Who decides if you fail? And who decides if the Dark Lord's assassins kill you first?

Rutee

2008-03-12, 06:20 PM

That is the fundamental break down. If I go to play poker and it's not for stakes then my attention will wonder off and I won't be interested enough in the game.

When you play poker, are the only stakes death? "2 players enter, only one will leave"? Or are stakes that are not death capable of compelling interest?

Sir, you have me entirely dead to rights. I do indeed find your posts provide my ego with a tremendous boost. They give me such a comfortable sense of superiority.
In the words of the Spartans, served.

Artanis

2008-03-12, 06:23 PM

And who decides if you succeed? Who decides if you fail?
Presumably some checks involving - *gasp!* *shock!* - social skills!

DUN DUN dunnnnnn....

horseboy

2008-03-12, 06:23 PM

Beckham is one of the best in the world, just FYI :smallwink:yeah, but it's soccer, so does it really count? :smallwink:

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 06:29 PM

{Scrubbed}

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 06:53 PM

That's one challenge. Now do it in a dangerous setting where you might actually be killed, and still accomplish it all, now you've got 2 challenges. You accomplish twice as much.

Arse, board ate my post.

The thing is, the "do you die" challenge isn't what I'm interested. It's a distraction. I mean, you could add another challenge to the game by making me play it with a live weasel in my pants, but it wouldn't make the game more fun, so why bother?

Since it is clearly and demonstrably possible for a challenge to exist which does not involve the risk of death, and since no other challenge is considered mandatory within the system, why should the risk of death be considered sacred?

horseboy

2008-03-12, 07:03 PM

When you play poker, are the only stakes death? "2 players enter, only one will leave"? Or are stakes that are not death capable of compelling interest?There's a proportional correlation between the stakes and my interest. Kinda like when I'm playing survival horror game where the GM isn't out to challenge me, but to kill me in the most spectacularly gruesome way he can devise and my using every little trick, trap and thing in the environment to make sure he doesn't get me. I'm not like that outside that genre.

I work best under pressure, and if there's no pressure on my character, then I get apathetic really quick.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 07:09 PM

There's a proportional correlation between the stakes and my interest. Kinda like when I'm playing survival horror game where the GM isn't out to challenge me, but to kill me in the most spectacularly gruesome way he can devise and my using every little trick, trap and thing in the environment to make sure he doesn't get me. I'm not like that outside that genre.

I work best under pressure, and if there's no pressure on my character, then I get apathetic really quick.

Why is the only possible pressure death? There are tons of bad things that happen to people in fantasy that don't involve death, and they can often be more interesting.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 07:14 PM

Arse, board ate my post.I hate that. :smallmad:

The thing is, the "do you die" challenge isn't what I'm interested. It's a distraction. I mean, you could add another challenge to the game by making me play it with a live weasel in my pants, but it wouldn't make the game more fun, so why bother?Did you try shaving the weasel first. :smallamused:

Since it is clearly and demonstrably possible for a challenge to exist which does not involve the risk of death, and since no other challenge is considered mandatory within the system, why should the risk of death be considered sacred?Now, I'm a little lost, are we talking about in general theory or D&D in particular? In D&D it's because it's just a hack 'n' slash game. Something's got to happen when you're hacked or slashed.
In general theory, yes it's POSSIBLE to have a challenge to exist which does not involve the risk of death, the question then becomes "Are those challenges more interesting to more people than challenges that carry the consequence of death?"

Rutee

2008-03-12, 07:18 PM

....!

You've been arguing based on DnD's system focus on pure hack n' slash the whole time? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUALIFIER :smallyuk:

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-12, 07:18 PM

In general theory, yes it's POSSIBLE to have a challenge to exist which does not involve the risk of death, the question then becomes "Are those challenges more interesting to more people than challenges that carry the consequence of death?"

In D&D, granted it's a combat game, it's all about the fighting and obviously the risk of death is a standard assumption, just like levels, classes, and per day abilities.

Generally, though, it's not "more people" I'm interested. People who find the risk of death to be interesting in and of itself have plenty of games to cater for them already. I'm only interested in what's interesting to me.

horseboy

2008-03-12, 07:19 PM

Why is the only possible pressure death? There are tons of bad things that happen to people in fantasy that don't involve death, and they can often be more interesting.The Lizard Brain.

Saph

2008-03-12, 07:35 PM

Why is the only possible pressure death? There are tons of bad things that happen to people in fantasy that don't involve death, and they can often be more interesting.

Death isn't the only one, but most psychological consequences work better without concrete rules.

I really enjoy the roleplaying consequences of combat, and the effects on a character's attitudes as they go through dangerous situations and learn from them. But I would not enjoy playing a game where that was forced on me. If the DM tells me:

"Okay, you've been through 6 mentally unbalancing situations, now you have to roll on the Insanity Table. Oh, you got a 93? Your character's now a drug addict."

. . . then I would be seriously upset. (And no, that's not an exaggeration - it's an almost verbatim description of a fairly popular fantasy RPG system.)

On the other hand, I have no problem with my character risking death, because if I voluntarily go into a life-or-death combat, I'm implicitly accepting the risk of my character dying. If I'd thought that the combat was unwinnable or not worth the risk, I generally wouldn't have entered it in the first place.

- Saph

Rutee

2008-03-12, 07:41 PM

Death isn't the only one, but most psychological consequences work better without concrete rules.
Psychological consequences are mutually exclusive with death though (Pretend there are systems that don't have a revolving door afterlife). I'm not arguing the presence for rules for death; I argue their strict application, as it's a boring consequence (Indeed, I can't imagine forcing a derangement unless it's interesting; And even then, the odds are actually very low. And even then it's a more interesting and develop-worthy event then death).

horseboy

2008-03-12, 07:46 PM

In D&D, granted it's a combat game, it's all about the fighting and obviously the risk of death is a standard assumption, just like levels, classes, and per day abilities.

Generally, though, it's not "more people" I'm interested. People who find the risk of death to be interesting in and of itself have plenty of games to cater for them already. I'm only interested in what's interesting to me.
Well, obviously, you're interested in what's interesting to you. I'm thinking more along the lines of the company. What's going to sell best. Since it's easy to write situations where combat isn't mandatory, therefore you can circumvent the problems of Death. Yes, I know, Oberoni.

Rutee: Well, I was keeping D&D feel games in mind. I do prefer games with combat systems that are lethal. That way I can't just slog through an adventure, sword in hand (like in D&D) but that I actually have to think my way through because I'll die. And yes, if you're playing a non-combat game, then there are other challenges that are just as fun. Hell, it's the reason my Bagheera hung out with the PC Toreador...

Roland St. Jude

2008-03-12, 07:50 PM

Sheriff of Moddingham: If you'd like to continue this discussion, please do so within the bounds of the Forum Rules. Thank you.

Saph

2008-03-12, 07:51 PM

Psychological consequences are mutually exclusive with death though (Pretend there are systems that don't have a revolving door afterlife). I'm not arguing the presence for rules for death; I argue their strict application, as it's a boring consequence

Says who?

In general, I'd rather have one of my characters die with dignity than go insane. At least twice in D&D games I've quite consciously decided that I'd rather have my character die than take the alternative being offered to me. In both cases I was told some variation on "give your friends over to suffer a horrible fate, or die." In both cases I chose to fight, even though I was heavily outmatched.

The only reason those choices had any meaning was because death was a very real possibility. If I'd known that the DM wouldn't let my character die, I would have done the same thing . . . but it would have lessened it, and I wouldn't have been particularly satisfied afterwards.

- Saph

Rutee

2008-03-12, 08:02 PM

Says who?

In general, I'd rather have one of my characters die with dignity than go insane. At least twice in D&D games I've quite consciously decided that I'd rather have my character die than take the alternative being offered to me. In both cases I was told some variation on "give your friends over to suffer a horrible fate, or die." In both cases I chose to fight, even though I was heavily outmatched.

The only reason those choices had any meaning was because death was a very real possibility. If I'd known that the DM wouldn't let my character die, I would have done the same thing . . . but it would have lessened it, and I wouldn't have been particularly satisfied afterwards.

- Saph

You caught me; I made a blanket statement too wide. Still doesn't change that death isn't always an interesting consequence. "You lose to mooks. You die" doesn't say anything. It was strictly logical, but it wasn't interesting. "You lose to mooks. They capture you and hold you captive. you wake up in a cell. What do you do?" is more interesting.

Will I agree that death, when it makes a statement, is an interesting consequence? Hell yeah. But it's not the death that was the statement. It's why that death came about; Because your characters' friends were worth more then the character's life.

Incidentally, you were comparing DnD death, as a result of any-old-combat, to nWoD's derangements. nWoD's derangements are not always appropriate... but there's one very enormous difference. Insanity, as you described it, can not happen without a very long string of character decisions. Do you know when true Insanity happens? Morality 0. Morality 0 is not something that can happen trivially. Your character will have an /abundance/ of opportunities to avert this, if it /really/ matters to them. Was whatever it was they were doing more important then their sanity? Hey, maybe it is. I can't tell in a void, and I haven't had a character that considered it. I had one drop; They realized what the hell they were doing, and said "No, this really isn't worth it", and began the climb back up to some measure of normality.

Saph

2008-03-12, 08:12 PM

You caught me; I made a blanket statement too wide. Still doesn't change that death isn't always an interesting consequence. "You lose to mooks. You die" doesn't say anything. It was strictly logical, but it wasn't interesting. "You lose to mooks. They capture you and hold you captive. you wake up in a cell. What do you do?" is more interesting.

Yeah, I'd prefer the second one, too (as long as it was legitimate, anyway - I've had a game or two too many where the DM's plot required the players to get captured, even when it didn't make much sense).

But at the same time, if battles with mooks have no chance at all of killing players, not even a tiny one, then I think you're usually better off not playing out the battles in the first place. When I'm DMing these sort of fights, then unless the players are obviously enjoying getting to effortlessly cut through the enemies, I'll usually fast-forward through. "The battle lasts for five or ten minutes, but it's clear after the first few seconds that the lemures are far too weak to pose a challenge to you. You mop them up without difficulty and move on to the real threat."

Incidentally, you were comparing DnD death, as a result of any-old-combat, to nWoD's derangements. nWoD's derangements are not always appropriate...

Actually, it was WFRP's insanity point system. In WFRP, each time something horrific happens, you have a chance of getting insanity points. Once you have six or more insanity points, you have to make a check. If you fail, you lose your insanity points . . . but also pick up an insanity. As a result, long-running WFRP characters are usually complete basket cases.

- Saph

horseboy

2008-03-12, 08:27 PM

Actually, it was WFRP's insanity point system. In WFRP, each time something horrific happens, you have a chance of getting insanity points. Once you have six or more insanity points, you have to make a check. If you fail, you lose your insanity points . . . but also pick up an insanity. As a result, long-running WFRP characters are usually complete basket cases.

- SaphI was thinking it was CoC, wait, is there a difference? :smallconfused:

Rutee

2008-03-12, 08:39 PM

But at the same time, if battles with mooks have no chance at all of killing players, not even a tiny one, then I think you're usually better off not playing out the battles in the first place. When I'm DMing these sort of fights, then unless the players are obviously enjoying getting to effortlessly cut through the enemies, I'll usually fast-forward through. "The battle lasts for five or ten minutes, but it's clear after the first few seconds that the lemures are far too weak to pose a challenge to you. You mop them up without difficulty and move on to the real threat."
Yeah, I wouldn't either, is the thing. Mooks are pretty much just there to help Lieutenants and potentially Big Bads.

Actually, it was WFRP's insanity point system. In WFRP, each time something horrific happens, you have a chance of getting insanity points. Once you have six or more insanity points, you have to make a check. If you fail, you lose your insanity points . . . but also pick up an insanity. As a result, long-running WFRP characters are usually complete basket cases.

- Saph

I suppose the percentile dice should have been an indicator..

Matthew

2008-03-12, 09:07 PM

Actually, it was WFRP's insanity point system. In WFRP, each time something horrific happens, you have a chance of getting insanity points. Once you have six or more insanity points, you have to make a check. If you fail, you lose your insanity points . . . but also pick up an insanity. As a result, long-running WFRP characters are usually complete basket cases.

I can attest to that. Just seeing some of the more powerful Demons would accrue one Insanity Point, as I recall.

Rutee

2008-03-12, 09:42 PM

Question: Can you avoid this in some fashion? Or is it effectively inevitable?

Matthew

2008-03-12, 10:33 PM

Question: Can you avoid this in some fashion? Or is it effectively inevitable?

In Marienburg there's an Insane Asylum, I seem to recall reading that with the proper methods psychological ailments could be treated, but WHFRP is a bit like CoC, in that the repercussions of 'fighting the good fight' are that your delicate psyche will eventually crumble away.

Let me check my copy of WHFRP...

1) An Insanity Point is gained every time a Critical Hit is suffered (no save).

2) An Insanity Point is gained every time a Character fails a 'Cool' test (Men start with a 22-40% chance of resisting) versus a Terror Effect.

3) Drug abuse and DM fiat [i.e. witnessing horrible things] may also call for an Cool test to avoid gaining one or more Insanity Points.

Apparently, disorders and Insanity Points can be removed 'at the DM's discretion' by faith healers, special potions or other appropriate means, all of which necessitate a Willpower test.

To be fair, I now note that these rules were optional...

Rutee

2008-03-13, 02:18 AM

Effectively inevitable, if the option is used. Well, it is an option.. I think it's an awful system, but at least i'ts not a requisite part.

Dan_Hemmens

2008-03-13, 06:57 AM

Death isn't the only one, but most psychological consequences work better without concrete rules.

You feel that psychological consequences work better without concrete rules. I feel that death works better without concrete rules, for pretty much the same reasons.

I really enjoy the roleplaying consequences of combat, and the effects on a character's attitudes as they go through dangerous situations and learn from them. But I would not enjoy playing a game where that was forced on me. If the DM tells me:

"Okay, you've been through 6 mentally unbalancing situations, now you have to roll on the Insanity Table. Oh, you got a 93? Your character's now a drug addict."

. . . then I would be seriously upset. (And no, that's not an exaggeration - it's an almost verbatim description of a fairly popular fantasy RPG system.)

You are Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and I claim my five pounds.

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.

I'm not saying that it's wrong or inconsistent for you to be willing to accept one but not the other, just that it's wrong and inconsistent to say that one is a necessary part of gameplay and the other is not.

On the other hand, I have no problem with my character risking death, because if I voluntarily go into a life-or-death combat, I'm implicitly accepting the risk of my character dying. If I'd thought that the combat was unwinnable or not worth the risk, I generally wouldn't have entered it in the first place.

And in WFRP, when your character goes into a stressful situation, you accept the risk that you might wind up with a random mental illness.

I - like I think most people here - am more than capable of adjusting my assumptions to the game I'm playing. When I play D&D I expect to get taken down by failed saving throws. I just prefer games where death is less random, and so I support the decision of the 4th Edition designers to remove the "russian roulette" elements from the game.

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."

Winterwind

2008-03-13, 07:07 AM

I was thinking it was CoC, wait, is there a difference? :smallconfused:CoC (utterly unrelated with either (n)WoD or WHFRP) would have you roll a percentile die against your current Sanity points. All examples for Sanity losses are presented in a form like 1/1d6+1, or something like that. If you roll more than your Sanity, and thus fail the check, you would lose Sanity points according to the number behind the slash (so, 1d6+1 here), if you made the check according to the number before the slash (so, 1 here). Obviously, this means that the lower your Sanity is, the faster you lose it. If you ever lose 5 or more Sanity points at once you enter temporary insanity (lasting a couple of rounds), if you lose more than one fifth of your Sanity points within one hour, you gain a permanent insanity (lasting at least a couple of months, and possibly forever).

nagora

2008-03-13, 07:10 AM

You caught me; I made a blanket statement too wide. Still doesn't change that death isn't always an interesting consequence. "You lose to mooks. You die" doesn't say anything. It was strictly logical, but it wasn't interesting. "You lose to mooks. They capture you and hold you captive. you wake up in a cell. What do you do?" is more interesting.

Will I agree that death, when it makes a statement, is an interesting consequence? Hell yeah. But it's not the death that was the statement. It's why that death came about; Because your characters' friends were worth more then the character's life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Friendly

2008-03-13, 08:39 AM

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.

I don't see how randomly wiping out the party every other week is really contributing to role-playing.

All I see is that 4e has greatly reduced the chances for death at the beginning of the game. Also, I have a question for all the "champions of death" in the thread.

The general conjecture I seem to be hearing is that random death = more rewarding play because of challenge.

I have a hypothetical scenario for you, one that isn't that far outside of the realm of possibility (in fact, it is an actual account of a real game, however, you don't know me, I don't know you; so promoting it as "fact" is a fools errand):

A typical 3rd edition party, playing a typical 3rd edition adventure. (in this case it was return to the temple of elemental evil, converted to 3.5) So the party makes it to, was it Homlett? And the DM conned us into smoking tambrosh at which point everyone but 2 characters died. (6 man party) We were 6th level. With 6th level gear. post-death, the party was 2 people, with the gear of 6 characters. By the book, we made new characters, complete with new equipment... and we had another near TPK, leaving another 2 characters, now with the accumulated wealth of what, like 8 characters?

At this point the DM says no more - now when we make new characters they get no gear. It has to come out of the party treasure. "Why?" the remaining characters ask. "We don't know the new characters and we have no believable reason to just give away our money." (bear in mind the party had already been infiltrated by assassins or something, so we didn't trust NPCs or "random strangers")

So, begrudgingly, the other PCs forked over enough cash to get some basic gear for the new characters and bought awesome equipment for themselves. (wealth by level guidelines + Knowledge + Gather Info...)

Next fight, TPK, for everyone except.... Care to guess? Yes shockingly the 2 characters with several times over the WBL guideline kived to tell the tale... and collect the loot from that fight. Seeing a pattern? Yeah, so did we.

Now the DM in this case wasn't a novice DM, but he was playing a very fair game and acting as impartial umpire rather than a storyteller.

This went on for, at least 3 months, 1 session a week, everyone except these two die and make new characters. Finally, we just said we were done with it and so was the DM. The 2 charcters in question were so immensely powerful, even at 12th level, since between them they had wealth far beyond a 20th level character.

You can say that it is all the fault of these two players, for not "being team players"; however, we also handed out roleplaying awards based on how well one roleplayed their character and usually one or the other was the winner - they played their characters believably.

And this happened in multiple campaigns for us in 3.X; it is part of the core game that is, all by itself, broken. Yes, it can be handwaved; yes DM fiat can make everything wonderful; the question then becomes though, what makes a critically flawed that requires severe handwaving 3.5 superior to a (theoretically) balanced 4.0 that (hopefully) eliminates problems like these?

hamlet

2008-03-13, 08:41 AM

You like to play like that. I do not like to play like that.

But I'll echo Rutee here. Where are people getting this idea that Game == Death.

Is Monopoly "not a game" because you can't get shanked in gaol? Is Cluedo "not a game" because only an NPC gets killed in it?

And for that matter, why is the chance of death so sacred, when the chance of dismemberment, crippling injury or infirmity has been so utterly removed from the system? Why is a game where my character can be crippled but not die "ego stroking and wish fulfillment" whereas one where my character can die but not be crippled is mature and meaningful?

See, this is what we call a "straw man."

I am not saying that the only fun way to play is a game where anybody who doesn't win gets shanked. I'm not advocated an RPG where players die left and right faster even than the mook goblins.

I'm talking about the fact that, though it has aspects of a "cooperative story telling toy," is a game in which there are losers (and yes, I understand the "there are no losers" talk and they are not mutually exclusive). Character death is the most common example of that, but is certainly not the only example. Insanity from various games (Warhammer and COC being prime examples), character maimings or cripplings, horrific traps whose only defense against consists of recognizing a dangerous situation and simply not entering the room, and, in short, the real presence of danger to a PC that is contingent on luck and/or PLAYER smarts rather than just the character's ability scores.

That was the topic of a very long discussion I had only a week ago with a player in a Gygax tribute game we played wherin his character fell afoul of an illusion that he, as a player, failed to notice (in AD&D 1e, illusions are more of a player test than a character test, they require that the player pay attention and be sharp rather than relying on the roll of a D20). He argued for about 2 hours that it was completely unfair and that his charcter should have encyclopedic knowledge of a hallway he had been in 4 times and whether it was 5 feet to the 50 foot ledge, or 7 feet (without him having stated that he was paying particular attention to where he was going).

The idea that characters shouldn't die unless dramatically appropriate is a notion I agree with: it's just our definition of dramatic appropriateness that differs. It seems that the prevailing opinion is that what is appropriate for character death (and one that seems to be shared by WOTC designers) is that "appropriate death" involves "you shall not pass" moments (i.e., Gandalf at Khazad Dum, Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra, etc), Final Battle scenes (i.e., fighting the big bad in his lair in the final scene against an opponent specifically powered up so that it can overcome the absurd level of damage that PC's can now absorb), dramatically pivotal scenes (i.e., upon meeting the big bad or dragon for the first time and killing a PC to get across what a bad@$$ he really is).

For me, any death that's not "that barmaid you bedded last month? yeah, she had scabies, you're gonna have to roll a save or die horribly" is pretty much appropriate. Having a character die two rooms into the dungeon from a lucky orc arrow? Eh, happens. Having my throat slit at night because I ticked off the thieve's guild and failed to finish them off? Hey, should have been more careful. Dying after plummeting off a cliff due to an illusion because I missed the clues my DM worked into the flavor text? Dang, should've paid more attention. Have to roll up a new PC since the old one went incurably insane? Yeah, but at least he went out doing something.

It's a difference in style of play and, while I can appreciate the cinematic, dramatic, and action oriented game style that many here seem to prefer, it's not the one I prefer.

The issue isn't that you guys prefer a different style, it's that your style is built into the system now with no realy way of altering it. Death, as we have actually seen in the playtest reports, comes about only due to extremely bad luck in dice rolling on the part of the player or by a specifically powered up and dramatically appropriate encounter (i.e., the dragon). What happens if I want to play a game where it's easier to die? I have to go in and start changing the rules to emulate what I want. Whereas if that had been an optional but recommended rule, we could have both enjoyed the system more. On the flip side, with older editions, it would actually be easier to emulate your style while still accomodating mine (you simply don't use save or die effects and insta-kills or anything like that).

The issue is that fourth edition is not just a new set of rules. It's a new set of rules set up to specifically enforce a style of play that, if you don't want to use that style, you can't really use the rules. Of course, I can't say that with 100% accuracy since nobody's seen all the rules yet, but that's the way it seems and it's very dissapointing.

nagora

2008-03-13, 08:59 AM

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.

An alternative solution is to reduce housecat's damage or for the DM to have a brain.

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.

Critical hit rules usually do indeed screw up games of all genres. A good solution is to remove them completely. Another option is to re-work them but they have to be very subtle to not make combat into a fluke-fest.

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.

I don't see how randomly wiping out the party every other week is really contributing to role-playing.

Indeed not.

All I see is that 4e has greatly reduced the chances for death at the beginning of the game. Also, I have a question for all the "champions of death" in the thread.

The general conjecture I seem to be hearing is that random death = more rewarding play because of challenge.

It's more that no chance of death, even in the face of great danger is un-challenging and unrewarding.

Notice that the person mostly arguing for the removal of so-called random death is also the person who said that he does not play RPGs to be challenged.

I have a hypothetical scenario for you, one that isn't that far outside of the realm of possibility (in fact, it is an actual account of a real game, however, you don't know me, I don't know you; so promoting it as "fact" is a fools errand):

...long snip...

This went on for, at least 3 months, 1 session a week, everyone except these two die and make new characters. Finally, we just said we were done with it and so was the DM. The 2 charcters in question were so immensely powerful, even at 12th level, since between them they had wealth far beyond a 20th level character.

I don't get the point of the story other than to suggest that the DM has difficulty creating challenging scenarios without resorting to Deus-Ex-Machina solutions.

You can say that it is all the fault of these two players, for not "being team players"; however, we also handed out roleplaying awards based on how well one roleplayed their character and usually one or the other was the winner - they played their characters believably.

It certainly does not sound like there was a problem with the players to me.

And this happened in multiple campaigns for us in 3.X; it is part of the core game that is, all by itself, broken. Yes, it can be handwaved; yes DM fiat can make everything wonderful; the question then becomes though, what makes a critically flawed that requires severe handwaving 3.5 superior to a (theoretically) balanced 4.0 that (hopefully) eliminates problems like these?

I also don't see why even the 3ed system is to blame, and I say that as someone who despises it.

Indon

2008-03-13, 09:18 AM

Why is a 3e DM allowed to use DM fiat, but a 4e DM can't ever do so?

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.

Put simply, I don't consider "don't die" to be an interesting challenge. It casts the PC as an utterly passive creature, whose only interesting decision is to die or not to die (like Boromir's player in DM of the Rings).

So you would find, say, a zombie apocalypse campaign to be boring?

When you play poker, are the only stakes death? "2 players enter, only one will leave"? Or are stakes that are not death capable of compelling interest?

And that would be crazy important if we were talking about betting real money on the outcomes of events in D&D.

As it is, all in-game events are just different types and quantities of chips (that don't cash into anything, really). Since we aren't playing with real money in the first place, we might as well play higher-stakes with our pretend money.

"Okay, you've been through 6 mentally unbalancing situations, now you have to roll on the Insanity Table. Oh, you got a 93? Your character's now a drug addict."

Many systems run that sort of thing. It's interesting. F'taghn!

But at the same time, if battles with mooks have no chance at all of killing players, not even a tiny one, then I think you're usually better off not playing out the battles in the first place.

The problem is, in 4'th edition you can't do this, because undangerous combats are used in the system to soften up the players. The result is that you may well spend over half an hour 'playing' out a combat just to decide how many healing surges you're down for the day because of it. That's not fun!

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.

Hmm. This isn't right at all.

Problem: 1st level characters can be killed by housecats who are acting wildly out of character because cats generally don't attack things much larger than they are.

Solution: Increase HP outside of the "be killed by a housecat" range, decrease damage scaling by level, decrease the damage dealt by and/or the frequency of critical hits, remove non-damaging ways to incapacitate opponents, make stabilizing easier, and make getting back up after becoming incapacitated easier.

Reaction: 4e combat has become boring with the exception of fights in which the party is clearly outmatched and likely to be TPK'ed.

There we go, that actually reflects changes to the system and arguments used by individuals in the thread. Also, cats! Everyone loves cats.

Another problem I neglected to mention about 4'th edition's risk reduction:

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.