Do people really enjoy close battles?

[KorvinStarmast]

But on the other hand it is about making a difference, not just survival. If I put enemies to sleep and capture them rather than kill them then the outcome is different (I.e. having prisoners) even if the party was never so much at risk.

We had this happen Saturday. Very tough fight, my bard was mostly casting control spells, and it gave the damage dealers the chance to kill or capture the young dragon (one of five enemies). What I did enabled their choice, and I of course went along with "capture! The way my bard approached this was: "How often to you get to talk to a real live {evil} dragon and maybe work a deal of some kind?" It was added, bonus fun after a difficult combat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We had this happen Saturday. Very tough fight, my bard was mostly casting control spells, and it gave the damage dealers the chance to kill or capture the young dragon (one of five enemies). What I did enabled their choice, and I of course went along with "capture! The way my bard approached this was: "How often to you get to talk to a real live {evil} dragon and maybe work a deal of some kind?" It was added, bonus fun after a difficult combat.

One note--he was an adult, not a young.

And from my side of the table (as the DM), that wasn't a difficult fight at all. By the numbers? Sure (76,200 adjusted XP vs a daily budget of 54,000 XP, so something like 3.5xDeadly). As usual, the dice had...a strong sense of dramatic appropriateness[1]. I couldn't roll saving throws worth crap, and the party's dice were really hot.

Perception on the different sides of the table is certainly different, that's for sure.

[1] I've found that the dice frequently know who, narratively, should win the fight and go with that. Seriously, this was one of the party member's "backstory" fights, against his ex-wife[2] and (evil) twin brother. I believe he rolled 8 or so natural 20s, including a pair at advantage (both dice natural 20), letting him smite the living daylights out of the enemies. And his griffon was pretty darn strong as well.
[2] a total <bad word> who, in his backstory, had been super abusive and, as it turned out, had been cheating on him with his twin brother. And who, along with said brother, was working for the BBEG.

[Talakeal]

You've been playing D&D for a long time. What do you mean when you say tactics? I have difficulty seeing a lack of clarity regarding the term, but I have been surprised before.

I just wanted to clarify where tactics stopped.

I am wondering if Quertus counts planning, information gathering, strategic resource allocation, picking the right time and place, setting up traps or magical contingencies, bringing allies, and carefully choosing who to engage, and other preparations which occur "off the battlemat" to fall under tactics as well, because if not I am not sure what all is left that he would like to decide the fate of the battle.


I assume from this context he only means his round to round decisions on the battlefield when he says tactics, but this could also be read in such a (imo far more problematic) way that he doesn't want tactics to matter at all, he simply wants to be so OP that he is guaranteed a win no matter how little thought he puts in (which, on my less charitable days, if often how I feel some of my players want it to be).

[Jakinbandw]

I enjoy a well-deserved loss, even if it's a TPK.

I definitely want strategy and tactics to be far more effective than dice at determining the outcome. See also my love of "win buttons". See also the grognard motto of "if the dice come out, you've failed".

What do you do after you've had a tpk?


Also, win buttons. As a player I like them, but as a gm I see them as a failure. If there are win buttons then the only reason the pcs live is through NPC incompetence which isn't the type of game I want to make.

As for the game I'm working on, a tpk, if it happens, has the PCs self revive in a few months. This leaves the faction they run without effective leadership and give opposing nations time to build up and invade while the pcs are out of the picture. The world move on its apocalyptic trajectory with noone to stop it for a bit and things get worse.

The players can only truly die if their faction is entirely wiped out first.

[Skrum]

I hadn't really considered this one or the other until recently, but the group I'm with now it's made me think about it quite a bit. No offense to the OP's group, but the group I'm with is nowhere near as "bad" as that - hard encounters seem to be well-received. The part that's overcooking my grits a bit is character death. It's pretty obvious to me that no one wants their character to die (i.e., character death would not be fun and would be a strict reduction in their enjoyment of the game). This is entirely foreign to me, and somehow especially shocking 'cause we're all in our 20's and 30's and getting *that* attached to the character seems juvenile.

Some have said they don't mind if their character dies as long as it's a great storytelling moment, like against the BBEG. But that to me is barely any better, as it implies that the characters should have plot armor unless they're facing an Story Arc Boss. I don't care for this at all, especially considering the setting is, nominally, supposed to be a gritty, wild-west type of place.

[MrStabby]

I hadn't really considered this one or the other until recently, but the group I'm with now it's made me think about it quite a bit. No offense to the OP's group, but the group I'm with is nowhere near as "bad" as that - hard encounters seem to be well-received. The part that's overcooking my grits a bit is character death. It's pretty obvious to me that no one wants their character to die (i.e., character death would not be fun and would be a strict reduction in their enjoyment of the game). This is entirely foreign to me, and somehow especially shocking 'cause we're all in our 20's and 30's and getting *that* attached to the character seems juvenile.

Some have said they don't mind if their character dies as long as it's a great storytelling moment, like against the BBEG. But that to me is barely any better, as it implies that the characters should have plot armor unless they're facing an Story Arc Boss. I don't care for this at all, especially considering the setting is, nominally, supposed to be a gritty, wild-west type of place.

Hmm. For me a good death doesn't need to be epic enemy, but it should reflect the character's story.

As a cleric devoted to healing, dying on a side quest to deliver healing is OK. I died in a way that reflects my character. If the same character dies on another PC's sidequest doing something that does not reflect their values then it sucks a bit more. The source of death might be dragons or goblins in either case but the focus is as much on why as on how.

[KorvinStarmast]

One note--he was an adult, not a young.

Ooh, I guess I got lucky on that slow spell, legendary save not triggered? Man, I just recalibrated my idea of how lucky we were!

Spoiler: commentary on that fight being harder than I first assessed

Show

(Hmm, I wonder if they had used a legendary save versus that first fireball from the sorc, I need to check up on adult black dragons now ... EDIT: Hilarious, I thought my 26 stealth roll would let me hide from that black dragon. Perception +11...blindsight 60 ft...passive Perception 21 He saw me the whole time! What's that character flaw of mine: "My pride will be my down fall!" yep, so proud of that stealth roll ... oopsie!)

Yeah, the paladin had a serious case of hot dice. and I was hot when I needed to be: those two counterspell rolls. Missing the save on the breath was, uh, me not being hot. Ouch, the acid, It burns, Precious!

@Talakeal:

I am wondering if Quertus counts planning, information gathering, strategic resource allocation, picking the right time and place, setting up traps or magical contingencies, bringing allies, and carefully choosing who to engage, and other preparations which occur "off the battlemat" to fall under tactics as well, because if not I am not sure what all is left that he would like to decide the fate of the battle.

I include choosing where (terrain) to engage and having a rough plan, and rough back up plan, as included in party tactics. So too are deliberate attempts to shape the fight (control spells) and to synergize between various PC abilities. Round to round choices are also tactical in nature. (Whom to choose as allies, to me, seems to stray into strategy, but that's a soft boundary).
You and I seem to view tactics similarly enough, thanks for explaining.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ooh, I guess I got lucky on that slow spell, legendary save not triggered? Man, I just recalibrated my idea of how lucky we were!

Spoiler: commentary on that fight being harder than I first assessed

Show

(Hmm, I wonder if they had used a legendary save versus that first fireball from the sorc, I need to check up on adult black dragons now ... EDIT: Hilarious, I thought my 26 stealth roll would let me hide from that black dragon. Perception +11...blindsight 60 ft...passive Perception 21 He saw me the whole time! What's that character flaw of mine: "My pride will be my down fall!" yep, so proud of that stealth roll ... oopsie!)

Yeah, the paladin had a serious case of hot dice. and I was hot when I needed to be: those two counterspell rolls. Missing the save on the breath was, uh, me not being hot. Ouch, the acid, It burns, Precious!

Due to the presence of other creatures in the fight (and my own forgetfulness), I wasn't actually using the Legendary actions/saves at all. Could have, which would have Nyx'ed[1] the slow.

[1] For those following along at home, that's a pun based on the paladin's ex-wife's name. Who died...messily. Including her dead body falling 120' to go splat.

[KorvinStarmast]

Due to the presence of other creatures in the fight (and my own forgetfulness), I wasn't actually using the Legendary actions/saves at all. Could have, which would have Nyx'ed[1] the slow.

And it saved the next round anyway, IIRC. A few of the others did not.

Including her dead body falling 120' to go splat.

OK, now I have to do a song based on the REM song "Feeling Gravity's Pull" ... a bard's work never ends.

[Mr Beer]

As a player and as a GM, I like close fights, occasionally, if it feels meaningful.

I absolutely detest 50/50 battles on a regular basis because

- Characters dying all the time is not fun for players.
- I generally prefer games where the characters are heroes not mooks, which doesn't work if everyone they meet is a match for them.
- There are no emotional stakes when the party gets into a lethal fight with some random encounter. It's not heroic or meaningful for Bilbo and the dwarves to get eaten by a bunch of trolls before they even get near Smaug.

You can see from the above if you enjoy Paranoia or some grimdank setting, then YMMV.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a player and as a GM

Just a quick note: Paranoia isn't played as a campaign.

[Quertus]

I just wanted to clarify where tactics stopped.

I am wondering if Quertus counts planning, information gathering, strategic resource allocation, picking the right time and place, setting up traps or magical contingencies, bringing allies, and carefully choosing who to engage, and other preparations which occur "off the battlemat" to fall under tactics as well, because if not I am not sure what all is left that he would like to decide the fate of the battle.


I assume from this context he only means his round to round decisions on the battlefield when he says tactics, but this could also be read in such a (imo far more problematic) way that he doesn't want tactics to matter at all, he simply wants to be so OP that he is guaranteed a win no matter how little thought he puts in (which, on my less charitable days, if often how I feel some of my players want it to be).

Being so OP that I win no matter how little thought I put into it? No, that's backwards - I want to put so much thought into it, we win no matter how UP we are.

I want the things we do before the fight to obviate the need to even have the fight. (See also your "totally not like the Goonies" campaign)

Or, more to the point, I want the players to have the Agency to set the difficulty of the fight anywhere from "well beyond impossible" to "well beyond cakewalk" based on their actions before the fight. And replace the word "fight" with "challenge".

So, to answer your first question: I often use the words almost interchangeably, but here I mean "strategy" to mean the actions taken before the challenge that may turn it into a cut-scene victory (or cut-scene loss), or otherwise affect the difficulty, CaW style, in ways that CaS would deem "cheating", whereas I mean "tactics" to be in-the-moment actions of the ilk CaS would be fine with, and that war games are made of.

So, if I'm playing… Let's Make a Deal, and I put a tracking device on the grand prize before the show? That's strategy. If I know how math works? That's tactics.

So, yes, all the things you listed - planning, information gathering, strategic resource allocation, picking the right time and place, setting up traps or magical contingencies, bringing allies, and carefully choosing who to engage, and other preparations which occur "off the battlemat" - fall under strategy. Whereas the choice to Rapid Shot Full Attack and drop prone, vs Full Attack and free action drop bow and Quickdraw a spiked chain, vs Greater Manyshot and move to cover? That's tactics.

Both can have a large impact.

What do you do after you've had a tpk?

Plan the next adventure? See if there's anything for the players to learn?

Also, win buttons. As a player I like them, but as a gm I see them as a failure. If there are win buttons then the only reason the pcs live is through NPC incompetence which isn't the type of game I want to make.

… what?

I like Invisibility that has rules "you cannot be seen", not "+5 bonus stealth".

So that, if you're fighting Medusa, you turn her invisible, and you just pressed a win button of "Medusa *cannot* turn you to stone".

This has nothing to do with Medusa being incompetent. In fact, of she's competent and is using spiked pits or similar, it has a lot to do with reacting to her being competent, and not wanting to use blindfolds or other such that put the party at too great a disadvantage in handling her competent use of terrain.

[Talakeal]

Being so OP that I win no matter how little thought I put into it? No, that's backwards - I want to put so much thought into it, we win no matter how UP we are.

I want the things we do before the fight to obviate the need to even have the fight.

I got that from your last response, I was just explaining my position to Korvin.

(See also your "totally not like the Goonies" campaign)

I actually am not quite sure if I understand how the analogy fits, but geeze, bringing up an off hand comparison I made what... seven years ago, now? You sound like one of my players.

So much for you supposed senility :)

[Telok]

Just a quick note: Paranoia isn't played as a campaign.

There's the option and support for it. I had two players keep bringing back Paranoia characters for more missions, and what's a campaign but a series of missions? Sort of like Pendragon isn't played as one-shots, but nothing is stopping you and it works fine.

[MoiMagnus]

There's the option and support for it. I had two players keep bringing back Paranoia characters for more missions, and what's a campaign but a series of missions? Sort of like Pendragon isn't played as one-shots, but nothing is stopping you and it works fine.

I'd say there is a big difference in expectations.

I'd be ok to change of character at every single session of a series of missions (because each time, my character died, became a traitor that joined some of the faction, or was promoted to a position that make him inadequate for the following mission). I'd be quite pissed if the same was to happen during a campaign.

Similarly, in a campaign, I'd expect some value for the whole which is not simply the sum of its fragments. Like some feeling of progression. In a sequence of missions, if we obliterate the whole planet by mistake and that the GM just decided to ignore the previous mission (and have the planet still exist and everyone still alive), I might joke about it but I would not really care about this lack of continuity: "consequences" are problems to ignore later.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's the option and support for it. I had two players keep bringing back Paranoia characters for more missions, and what's a campaign but a series of missions? Sort of like Pendragon isn't played as one-shots, but nothing is stopping you and it works fine.

Given that my last Paranoia game takes us back to the late 80's, and we only ever played it as a "one evening" game, thanks for the update.

[Telok]

I'd say there is a big difference in expectations.

I'd be ok to change of character at every single session of a series of missions (because each time, my character died, became a traitor that joined some of the faction, or was promoted to a position that make him inadequate for the following mission). I'd be quite pissed if the same was to happen during a campaign.

Please recall that a Paranoia character starts with six (may vary +/-1 or 2 by edition) clones and can buy or be rewarded with more. Every character starts in an illegal faction. And promotion in no way requires a change of duties (the Computer is insane, that helps with assignments). Treason also generally doesn't follow from one clone to the next, new clones are presumed innocent until accused and treason is not always punished by death.

There really is nothing stopping you from playing the same character ithrough a Paranoia campaign. Remember, the game is a dark comedy with mad science. You get mechanically rewarded for having fun and making people laugh. If it's funny then there's nothing stopping a character being uploaded in to a robot body, going all Frankenstein monster, bribing their way into using some else's clones, or stealing a malfunctioning cloning tank.

[KorvinStarmast]

or stealing a malfunctioning cloning tank.

I know a sorcerer who desperately wants one of these. He's bugging me to figure out a way to learn the Clone spell (I am a lore bard, I think I need to wait for the Wish spell to do that, magical secrets) so that his play to overthrow a kingdom has a back up plan ...

[Calthropstu]

I know a sorcerer who desperately wants one of these. He's bugging me to figure out a way to learn the Clone spell (I am a lore bard, I think I need to wait for the Wish spell to do that, magical secrets) so that his play to overthrow a kingdom has a back up plan ...

A cloning tank? I wonder how you would drive one of those... I feel the motions would be repetitive.

[LudicSavant]

TLDR: In your experience, do players actually prefer tough battles were they struggle to pull through in the end, or do they prefer easy victories where they clearly outclass their opposition?

Both.

People often desire a variety of experiences.

[Jakinbandw]

Plan the next adventure? See if there's anything for the players to learn?




… what?

I like Invisibility that has rules "you cannot be seen", not "+5 bonus stealth".

So that, if you're fighting Medusa, you turn her invisible, and you just pressed a win button of "Medusa *cannot* turn you to stone".

This has nothing to do with Medusa being incompetent. In fact, of she's competent and is using spiked pits or similar, it has a lot to do with reacting to her being competent, and not wanting to use blindfolds or other such that put the party at too great a disadvantage in handling her competent use of terrain.

When you say win buttons I think of things like forcecage +cloud kill. Sleep at first level. Things that other npcs could have access to that if npcs used them in a surprisw round (or got lucky with Initiative) would cause the pcs to just loose.

Invisibility on a Medusa isnt an I Win button anyway, because you have to still fight her, and she can target the mage. It nullifies one power of hers, but it doesn't instantly end the fight without issue.

(I'm assuming you you mean improved Invisibility, as to end normal Invisibility, all the Medusa would need to do is make a single attack.)



As for just moving on to the next adventure, do you remember characters that died? Like if I ran for you, and killed your character Quertus in a fair fight (against a party of 4 npc casters of equal level) would you want to bring him back for the next adventure, or would you be fine with him forever being dead?

[KorvinStarmast]

A cloning tank? I wonder how you would drive one of those...

It's remotely piloted, so you use a cellular device

[Quertus]

When you say win buttons I think of things like forcecage +cloud kill. Sleep at first level. Things that other npcs could have access to that if npcs used them in a surprisw round (or got lucky with Initiative) would cause the pcs to just loose.

Invisibility on a Medusa isnt an I Win button anyway, because you have to still fight her, and she can target the mage. It nullifies one power of hers, but it doesn't instantly end the fight without issue.

(I'm assuming you you mean improved Invisibility, as to end normal Invisibility, all the Medusa would need to do is make a single attack.)

By Playground convention, (D&D) Knock and Invisibility are "win buttons", because they "just work", as opposed to being represented by bonuses to rolls.

Also, I was speaking of Medusa and Invisibility generally, not in a D&D-specific context. D&D has a strange, downgraded form of invisibility that it pawns off as "Invisibility", then gives you the real stuff as "Improved Invisibility". (Except even that's a farce…).

If Dr. Strange used "win button hate" invisibility, whose only mechanic was, "grants a +5 bonus to stealth checks" on Medusa, he / his party would be turned to stone despite Medusa being invisible. But "win button", "real" Invisibility would, well, be a win button vs that power.

As for just moving on to the next adventure, do you remember characters that died?

Senility willing, yes.

Like if I ran for you, and killed your character Quertus in a fair fight (against a party of 4 npc casters of equal level) would you want to bring him back for the next adventure, or would you be fine with him forever being dead?

Honestly? In a fair fight, if they were all roleplayed correctly in accordance with their canonical representation, I think that the whole of the published non-deific NPC Wizards (with the exception of Elminster, who has too much deific mojo backing his capabilities) would lose to Quertus. As I suspect they would to most any high-OP epic Playground Wizards. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but those NPCs don't have a forum hive mind worth of ideas, and, as a Determinator would say, they really don't have a clue how to play the game.

But, yes, many of my characters have died. None have been Resurrected. One came back as a ghost, one was Kenny, the rest have stayed dead. (Well, the rest that died fair and square. Some GMs make incompetent mistakes and retcon; others don't even do that.)

It's why I don't have many good, heroic characters any more - my cowardly and/or self-serving characters are (unsurprisingly) much more likely to live. (EDIT: and you can call it "survivor bias", that I tend to tell stories about the characters who lived. Or you can just note that I tend to play the character through more sessions if they survive.)

But, to answer the question more in the direction I think you intended… dangerous things are dangerous. I'm baffled by those who don't / can't comprehend that. Characters die. I'll get upset about *how* they died ("what do you mean, he had to die 'for the plot'?!"), not about the death itself.

Character death is… a pain to certain storylines, and (often) a pain to roleplay (both the ignorance of the new guy, and others' tendencies to forget that the same player sitting there now represents a whole new, different individual), so it's suboptimal, and to be avoided if possible. And it certainly curtails my exploration of whatever facet of humanity I was exploring via that character. But it's not the end of the world - well, not *this* world, at any rate! (Yes, I had a character die who had world-ending-plot information, that nobody knew was important until after he died. That *was* kinda the end of the world. Oops.)

[Cluedrew]

By Playground convention, (D&D) Knock and Invisibility are "win buttons", because they "just work", as opposed to being represented by bonuses to rolls.

I believe a "win button" is any option that, once chosen, cause you to win without any uncertainty. Note they can be situational (knock doesn't help you cross a large gap), have limited use or causes that keep you from choosing them all the time. All that really matters is that it removes all uncertainty.

Also theoretically and stat bonus that means the outcome of a check becomes certain could count but usually they are not because... that doesn't happen very often.

[Quertus]

I believe a "win button" is any option that, once chosen, cause you to win without any uncertainty. Note they can be situational (knock doesn't help you cross a large gap), have limited use or causes that keep you from choosing them all the time. All that really matters is that it removes all uncertainty.

Also theoretically and stat bonus that means the outcome of a check becomes certain could count but usually they are not because... that doesn't happen very often.

On the one hand, it seems similar enough that I could respond, "that's what I said".

On the other hand, that makes it sound like a "framing" issue: if the challenge is, "unlock the door", Knock is a win button; OTOH, if the challenge is "sneak *silently* through the locked door", Knock is a fail, while (taking 20 on) Open Locks is a win button.

[kyoryu]

On the one hand, it seems similar enough that I could respond, "that's what I said".

On the other hand, that makes it sound like a "framing" issue: if the challenge is, "unlock the door", Knock is a win button; OTOH, if the challenge is "sneak *silently* through the locked door", Knock is a fail, while (taking 20 on) Open Locks is a win button.

And really I like looking slightly bigger in terms of scope. The challenge isn't "unlock the door". It's "get the magic vase from the vault". Now Knock isn't a win button - it's the consumption of a (theoretically) limited resource so it can't be used later. Take 20 (Open Locks) isn't a win button either, because it takes time. Bypassing the door in another way may not be a win button because it might involve combat or other risks.

To me, that's a well-designed scenario. There's multiple approaches, all with their pros and cons, and a good amount of the gameplay is going to be figuring out which costs you can deal with.

[Calthropstu]

And really I like looking slightly bigger in terms of scope. The challenge isn't "unlock the door". It's "get the magic vase from the vault". Now Knock isn't a win button - it's the consumption of a (theoretically) limited resource so it can't be used later. Take 20 (Open Locks) isn't a win button either, because it takes time. Bypassing the door in another way may not be a win button because it might involve combat or other risks.

To me, that's a well-designed scenario. There's multiple approaches, all with their pros and cons, and a good amount of the gameplay is going to be figuring out which costs you can deal with.

I'll take option z. Nuke the entire dungeon from orbit, grab the broken vase and use "make whole."

[PhoenixPhyre]

And really I like looking slightly bigger in terms of scope. The challenge isn't "unlock the door". It's "get the magic vase from the vault". Now Knock isn't a win button - it's the consumption of a (theoretically) limited resource so it can't be used later. Take 20 (Open Locks) isn't a win button either, because it takes time. Bypassing the door in another way may not be a win button because it might involve combat or other risks.

To me, that's a well-designed scenario. There's multiple approaches, all with their pros and cons, and a good amount of the gameplay is going to be figuring out which costs you can deal with.

Exactly. Reframing the challenges above the "single action" level helps a lot. Much more scope for agency and more opportunities to have granular results--"yes, you got the vase, but now everyone knows who did it." Or "you got the vase and framed someone else for doing it". It gives you the benefits of a more granular action-resolution system as well as other useful (to me) goodies while giving more chances for multiple people to get involved as well as reducing the number of win buttons possible.

I'll take option z. Nuke the entire dungeon from orbit, grab the broken vase and use "make whole."

And now the international ecological police are after you for flagrant environmental damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

@PhoenixPhyre - in D&D terms, that's a whole lot of ticked off druids.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@PhoenixPhyre - in D&D terms, that's a whole lot of ticked off druids.

Yup. And everyone else around.