RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think I know what bothers me about the mechanics I'm hearing.
4.0 crosses a line of lethality.
Lets look at our friend, Energy drain. It crossed this line in 3.x
One box two box
Red box/Blue box
Energy drain? Sucked. litterally, take a level and you're gone.
AD&D, IIRC, still sucked, though high level spells might fix it. "Mr Archmage, can I have my levels back?"
2e, still a pain, but there were defenses now, and the restoration spell was a whopping level lower.
3.x Level draining is a quicker mechanic (lose a spell, -1 to roles) with a longer term effect (level loss) but it could be saved against, protected against, and now, was a nusiance to higher level parties, not a threat. "Stupid vampire knocked 4 levels off of Bob the Barbarian. Clyde the cleric, time to break out the wand of lesser restoration."
Now look at Poison/petrification type effects as we've seen.
OD&D/AD&D/2eAD&D: Save vs poison or die!
3.x: Save vs poison or take ability damage, maybe die later on a second save.
4.x Poison saves vs. you!
Petrification
OD&D/AD&D/2eAD&D: Save vs petrification or join the rock garden
3.x: Fortitude save or join the rock garden.
4.x Petrification saves vs. you or you join the rock garden. Eventually. Maybe if your party doesn't like you. Maybe.
Oh and I just realized, everyone is Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris doesn't make Will/Reflex/Fortitude saves. Attacks save vs. Chuck Norris
Well, that's because people were complaining about the long runs back to their bodies from the res point. Now that they've added more graveyards, however, there may still be some rebalancing issues.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Feytharn,
Back in older editions (I don't know when you started playing) most poison was the save or die variety.
3.e opened it up to lots of possibilies, primarily ability damage, but delayed the effects over two saves. Still dangerous, not as lethal.
4.e, what we've seen it does straight hit poitns damage. no where near as lethal, especially since healing seems to be so much more abundant.
The in 4.e poison saves vs you! Is a reference to a Yakov Smirnof joke.
|
4E is High Fantasy. It isn't Sword and Sorcery. The progression you delineate is a general trend toward more and more High Fantasy in D&D. Perhaps you can say D&D started as a Sword and Sorcery and Low Fantasy hybrid, but I am sure a lot of people would argue against it.
What is certainly true is the move towards more high fantasy with each edition.
Since I am providing links, there is also Dark Fantasy, but it has less to do with the presence or absence of magic and is more associated with the nature of magic (darker).
There is clearly a lot of overlap in these definitions, and I for one don't agree with them on many points.
If one were to lay them out from gritty realism to super-power I think the consensus would be:
Sword and Sorcery
Low Fantasy
High Fantasy
I would really like to see D&D re-branded as 3 versions, one for each type of fantasy. If they could do some sort of core rules that are consistent among them all, then have the "fantasy style" core books as an add on, that may work. But I honestly understand why its "pick one and stick with it". D&D 3E I classify as high fantasy, although its flexible enough to knock it down to Sword and Sorcery. 4E is clearly a more into a Higher Fantasy realm.
I think we are moving into a new classification, really. Super-Fantasy is a good term...kind of like super heroes, but in a fantasy setting.
|
|
Feytharn,
Back in older editions (I don't know when you started playing) most poison was the save or die variety.
3.e opened it up to lots of possibilies, primarily ability damage, but delayed the effects over two saves. Still dangerous, not as lethal.
4.e, what we've seen it does straight hit poitns damage. no where near as lethal, especially since healing seems to be so much more abundant.
The in 4.e poison saves vs you! Is a reference to a Yakov Smirnof joke.
I didn't catch the joke - reason might be that english isn't my native language. I didn't know about 4.e. Poison doing only hitpoint damage THAT certainly will decrease lethality rating - the attack vs. save (or save vs. you - whatever) system does not.
Oh - I started with 2nd. Ed. but I own my fair share of 1st. ed. Rules and supplements. I for my part was more than happy with the lack of save or die rolls, and I remember many gamers complain about those in 2nd. Ed. or having house rules avoiding them.
Feytharn,
Back in older editions (I don't know when you started playing) most poison was the save or die variety.
3.e opened it up to lots of possibilies, primarily ability damage, but delayed the effects over two saves. Still dangerous, not as lethal.
4.e, what we've seen it does straight hit poitns damage. no where near as lethal, especially since healing seems to be so much more abundant.
The in 4.e poison saves vs you! Is a reference to a Yakov Smirnof joke.
I have my own tweak to the 3.5 poison system to make it more effective and lethal. I have players who have rogues/rangers who wouldn't even buy poison with the old rules, not because they didn't want to but because there was such a small chance of it doing anything beyond 6th level or so.
Poison Archlich Style:
Automatic Effect (1) (2)
The Shivers
Dex based poison damage: -1 to hit and to dexterity based skills
The Aches
Con based poison damage: Temporary -4hp.
The Chills
Str based poison damage: -1 to damage and to strength based skills (jump, swim, climb, etc)
Mind Fog
Int, Wis & Cha based poison damage: -1 to all mental skills. Automatic DC 11 Concentration check needed to cast any spells.
Alternate Secondary Save Effects
The secondary damage kicks in only two rounds later (-1 DC)
The secondary damage is the standard one minute later (same DC)
The secondary damage is an extended damage that takes place for a number of hours doing maximum damage. Equal to (number of dice) x (the dice type) hours later (+1 DC). (3)
Both quickening the secondary effect of the poison and extending the secondary effect requires alchemical treatments that increase the price of the poison by 150%.
To alter a poison to either a quick modified poison or extended modified poison requires a craft (poison) check. The craft (poison) DC is equal to 10 + (poison save DC). The process consumes 25% the base poisons price in material components (100gp poison needs 25gp in materials to alter it, etc.).
Example:
Normal: Small centipede poison, Injury DC 11; 1d2 Dex/1d2 Dex; 90 gp
Quick Modified: Small centipede poison, Injury DC 11/10; 1d2 Dex/1d2 Dex; 135 gp
Extended Modified: Small centipede poison, Injury DC 11/12; 1d2 Dex/1 Dex per hour for the next two hours; 135 gp
(1)Automatic effects do not stack with similar poison effects (dex & dex, con & con, etc). Unless the DM decides that they have been poisoned with an extremely large dose (at least >4x the normal dosage).
(2)Automatic effects are completely avoided if the creatures has poison resistance and makes their save.
(3)Antitoxin taken while under the effects of a "long term" poison will allow a new secondary poison save to stop the “long term” variety of poisoning (once/poisoning).
4E is High Fantasy. It isn't Sword and Sorcery. The progression you delineate is a general trend toward more and more High Fantasy in D&D. Perhaps you can say D&D started as a Sword and Sorcery and Low Fantasy hybrid, but I am sure a lot of people would argue against it.
What is certainly true is the move towards more high fantasy with each edition.
These are very good points and quite pertinent. We should remember that Gygax himself has always maintained that The Lord of the Rings -- the genesis of what we tend to think of as "high fantasy" nowadays -- had minimal influence on the development of OD&D and AD&D, despite the pandering to its fans with halflings (or hobbits, as they were once known) and balors (né Type VI demons, né balrogs). People who don't remember the strong pulp fantasy/sword & sorcery tone of early D&D think Gygax is being disingenuous when he says this, but it only seems so if you take what D&D has become as indicative of what it was originally conceived as being.
Me, I prefer the older feel, but I suspect I'm in the minority. 4E's going to make it damned hard to run that kind of game, so I'm taking a pass on it. It'd be nice, though, if there were some game that did do a good job of evoking the old Gygaxian take on pulp fantasy, even if it's not branded as D&D. Seems like someone should pick up that discarded mantle.
|
|
Feytharn,
Back in older editions (I don't know when you started playing) most poison was the save or die variety.
3.e opened it up to lots of possibilies, primarily ability damage, but delayed the effects over two saves. Still dangerous, not as lethal.
4.e, what we've seen it does straight hit poitns damage. no where near as lethal, especially since healing seems to be so much more abundant.
The in 4.e poison saves vs you! Is a reference to a Yakov Smirnof joke.
I have my own tweak to the 3.5 poison system to make it more effective and lethal. I have players who have rogues/rangers who wouldn't even buy poison with the old rules, not because they didn't want to but because there was such a small chance of it doing anything beyond 6th level or so.
Poison Archlich Style:
[spoiler]
Automatic Effect (1) (2)
The Shivers
Dex based poison damage: -1 to hit and to dexterity based skills
The Aches
Con based poison damage: Temporary -4hp.
The Chills
Str based poison damage: -1 to damage and to strength based skills (jump, swim, climb, etc)
Mind Fog
Int, Wis & Cha based poison damage: -1 to all mental skills. Automatic DC 11 Concentration check needed to cast any spells.Alternate Secondary Save Effects
The secondary damage kicks in only two rounds later (-1 DC)
The secondary damage is the standard one minute later (same DC)
The secondary damage is an extended damage that takes place for a number of hours doing maximum damage. Equal to (number of dice) x (the dice type) hours later (+1 DC). (3)Both quickening the secondary effect of the poison and extending the secondary effect requires alchemical treatments that increase the price of the poison by 150%.
To alter a poison to either a quick modified poison or extended modified poison requires a craft (poison) check. The craft (poison) DC is equal to 10 + (poison save DC). The process consumes 25% the base poisons...
Interesting rule - reminds me a bit of the drug rules. I did rise the DC's for the saves myself, as I did for spell effects (all by 5), because in even mediocre levels low level sells and most poisons almost mean no harm for anyone.
Interesting rule - reminds me a bit of the drug rules. I did rise the DC's for the saves myself, as I did for spell effects (all by 5), because in even mediocre levels low level sells and most poisons almost mean no harm for anyone.I thought of raising the DC's but instead I am just slowly adding extra poisons (with higher DC's and effects) to the roster. I din't want a spike in general lethality that would cause a equal spike in player munchkin-ness to deal with the higher DCs.
They want everyone to be happy and everyone wines when there characters are killed so they are making that happen less and less
|
|
I would really like to see D&D re-branded as 3 versions, one for each type of fantasy. If they could do some sort of core rules that are consistent among them all, then have the "fantasy style" core books as an add on, that may work. But I honestly understand why its "pick one and stick with it". D&D 3E I classify as high fantasy, although its flexible enough to knock it down to Sword and Sorcery. 4E is clearly a more into a Higher Fantasy realm.
I think we are moving into a new classification, really. Super-Fantasy is a good term...kind of like super heroes, but in a fantasy setting.
Heh, heh..Maybe we should check out Fantasy HERO. In HERO you can set up parameters and paradigms easily enough to get at the fantasy delineations that you mentioned.
Death is as much a vital part of the game as living is. Without the risk of death from powers that truly should be deadly, the element of risk declines as well.
In my eyes the problem with 4e is like some of the problems that are going on in today’s society, like political correctness. Everything seems to have to be softened so as to not upset any one person or group of. This is what I’m seeing happening to the game in which I adore and it frustrates no pi$$es me off to no end.
These rules that allow standard spell casters to cast area spells while being able to omit allies in certain squares from being damaged what so ever sickens me ( unless it’s used in the context of a prestige character that loses some abilities to gain others).
Then there’s smite, which allows enemies to be injured do to the attack from a Paladin, yet also heals allies simultaneously, talk about a joke, that’s nothing short of bad comedy.
There are many other examples, but I’m sure you all get where I’m coming from.
Without a doubt D&D is a fantasy game that brings a group of friends together for a day of camaraderie and carnage (not coddling) first and foremost, but to manipulate the rules so that nobody ever or at least very rarely dies takes away from the game to the extent that I personally have no interest in playing this version.
The only thing that upsets me more than what WotC’s is doing to our game, is that they have pushed me far enough away from this new edition that I am actually saying what I’m saying, for it actually stings to be thinking this way.
I only hope that I’m not properly seeing the big picture of 4e, instead of seeing my beloved game dismantled one rule/setting at a time.
|
Yeah, I'm not to thrilled with the apparent loss of lethality, among other things that 4e looks to be bringing to the table.
sadly, I think this has been a trend in the coming though. Look at the re imagined rust monster the Wizards put up on their site quite some time back. If some gear loss was such an "un fun" experience and they tried to get rid of it, it only makes sense that they would do the same to save or die type situations as well.
Poisons, level drains, etc are complained about time and time again by the 3.5e crowd. I've seen countless threads in regards to them on ENworld and other places. So, listening to the cries, it seems they are changing it.
Personally, I don't like it. I'm not surprised by it though.
|
Heroic gaming is about the test. Test of strength. Test of will. Test of intellect. Test of courage. It should not be a test of mortality.
What good is the tale of the hero wannabe that died and never saved the day?
We all knew that Luke would win in the end. We all knew that Neo was the one. We all knew that Beowulf would rip Grendel's arm off (and no - I did not see the film).
Those are the tales we want to game.
Do you want to play 300? Wanna play a game where you character gets all pumped up only to roll a 1 on that save or die attack?
Less lethal rules mean more room for heroism.
Less lethal=more heroism?
That is such BS. You aren't a hero if you don't take the risks. I don't enjoy knowing that I can't die. I don't feel the fear... and I know my players feel the same.
Yeah, I'm not to thrilled with the apparent loss of lethality, among other things that 4e looks to be bringing to the table.
sadly, I think this has been a trend in the coming though. Look at the re imagined rust monster the Wizards put up on their site quite some time back. If some gear loss was such an "un fun" experience and they tried to get rid of it, it only makes sense that they would do the same to save or die type situations as well.
Poisons, level drains, etc are complained about time and time again by the 3.5e crowd. I've seen countless threads in regards to them on ENworld and other places. So, listening to the cries, it seems they are changing it.
Personally, I don't like it. I'm not surprised by it though.
I'm torn by this, honestly. I play with casual gamers who play to have fun. One of my players was recently killed by a destruction spell. He failed his save, badly - too badly for me to fudge it. We're too far into the campaign for him to seriously consider making a new character, and the players have avoided NPC help for the most part (it's a large party). As a result, the player had several simply not fun evenings while the rest of the party took far too long to get it together for him to be raised.
This was worse because this character has been killed by save or die effects before, in the same campaign. I'm not saying all save or die effects are bad, but I've gotten to the point in the campaign where every other encounter the PCs aren't being laid low by combat, but are seriously endangered by a single poor roll on a saving throw.
I think there should be a real possibility of character death. I'm not so sure that possibility should ever rely on a single roll of the die. Everyone rolls ones sometimes. A single bad roll in an evening shouldn't result in a player being sidelined for the rest of the night.
And with the length of battles in 3.5 - that's exactly what happens when a player dies after a BBEG's alpha strike on the party succeeds.
|
|
That is such BS. You aren't a hero if you don't take the risks. I don't enjoy knowing that I can't die. I don't feel the fear... and I know my players feel the same.
Gotta agree 100% there. It's not heroic at all if there's no challenge. Life or death, risking it all makes a hero.
That's like calling the rich kid an entrepreneur when all he did was inherit daddy's money.
|
|
I've gotten to the point in the campaign where every other encounter the PCs aren't being laid low by combat, but are seriously endangered by a single poor roll on a saving throw.
If every other encounter is "save or die" then you're overusing it. Not a problem with the system, its a problem with implementation.
I agree. And disagree.
The threat of death is pretty much the only thing that makes playing D and D fun for my players, whether they know it or not. Remove it, and everything just becomes an annoyance. I'm actually pissed that poison and petrification have really lost their edge. Eat a Hero's Feast every morning and you'll never worry about fear / poison again. Wear soul fire armor, or even a soul fire shield, and you need never fear death effects. This is exactly the kind of arms race that I'm hoping 4th edition will try to avoid, though I remain doubtful.
On the other hand, the good news is that save or die effects will no longer bring down monsters. I can't tell you how many times I worked on preparing for difficult encounters which were undone by a barrage of arrows of slaying, and bad die rolls. When killing things becomes a mere economic issue, then I also think the game has become broken.
Is there a happy medium between these two trends?
I guess future adventures won't have titles like " The Dungeon of Death". The Dungeon of mere flesh Wounds...
The Tomb of Gags and Surprises...
What good is the tale of the hero wannabe that died and never saved the day?
...
Those are the tales we want to game.
...
Less lethal rules mean more room for heroism.
It can often be a great story; not every story has a happy ending. Some stories are that much greater for the failure.
The second part of your statement may not be true for all gamers.
As for my own interests, I find greater lethality far more memorable. I used to play and DM in a setting where all the monsters had minimum hit points, so that the characters could succeed and likely not die. I don't remember any encounters, save for one - a patch of green slime in a hallway (in 1st ed, green slime was lethal at low levels).
Conversely, the adventures I remember most had huge risks of character death. I remember the killer DM who through waves of bugbears, ogres and trolls at us, pushing us to the limits. When we finally breathed a sigh of relief, he announced the stone giants... That really tested us, and because we succeeded, we remember it and talk about it five years later.
Nearly 20 years ago, I was part of an epic battle in SHadowRun, combatting BlackBeard, who had found the fountain of youth and become a mage of vast power. I got lucky on some dice rolls, which is the only reason the tide turned in our favor, and I can recall leaping onto the table in exultation. Hell, I remember almost the entire night in detail, because my beloved character was in such peril... that was 20 years ago!
|
|
I completely agree there. The real and tangible possibility of your character kicking the bucket causes for great gaming.
In my game we try to walk that fine line between TPK and success. Why? Because those are the sessions that everyone remembers. The battles where it comes down to a single die roll to determine the outcome.
Last year during battle with a dragon, my players where neck deep in poo. The wizard took a gamble, hoping he could beat the dragon in initiative this particular round. If he didn't, he was toast and without his firepower the party would soon fall as well. The gamble paid off, he won the initiative and managed to save the day. It all hinged on that single initiative roll though. My players still talk about that battle when we get together.
Sometimes that "save or die" makes for intense and memorable gaming.
One more story about dying being more heroic than surviving:
I was in a Ravenloft campaign and in one of the few times I had no solid idea for a character. So I created a throwaway character, a rogue, who I fully expected to kill off when I came up with a better idea. I stole a friend's old character idea of making the character fascinated with fire.
Little did I know there would be a paladin from Faerun in our group. His god couldn't grant him powers, and I spontaneouesly made up my own god, Aether, Lord of Flames. I kept espousing his virtues, and burning stuff, and eventually the DM ruled that the Dark Powers would grant me gifts. I even multiclassed into cleric, and was granted spells. I tormented the paladin, who had told me my god wasn't real, and I kept telling him his must be fake, since I got spells (and I had no ranks in knowledge religion).
To get to the death part, we encountered a hag that inflicted a Cloudkill spell, and the poor rogue/cleric failed his save. In the meantime, he had converted a dwarven PC to worship of Aether, and he built a magnificnet mausoleum, complete with everburning flames. Additionally, several NPCs had been converted. The site would eventually become a pilgrimage destination.
After a few sessions, there was an opportunity for him to be raised. But he found himself, alone with his Lord, Aether, by being the first worshipper to die, in flames that burned but did not consume. When asked if he wanted to return to the world of the living, I could not RP him saying yes. So he remained dead.
But that is not the end of the story. Other PCs carried the name of Aether forward. The church grew. New PCs were introduced, many of them worshipping Aether. In new campaigns, more Aetherites were played. My only prestige class created was for followers of Aether, adn we had some long-ranging campaings involving Aether. IN fact, it was four complete campaigns before Aether was not somehow involved in the setting.
WHy did all this happen? Through the death of a throw-away character, a new god was created, and stories spread far and wide. Lethality very certainly can be a huge part of role-playing and DnD.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Do you want to play 300? Wanna play a game where you character gets all pumped up only to roll a 1 on that save or die attack?Less lethal rules mean more room for heroism.
Leonidas is remembered. The 300 are idolized, the Persians attacking them? Not so much.
That schmuck persian who lost his arm isn't.
Boromir's redemption in death is one of the high points of FotR (the movie version)
Death is part of life. Reward without risk is boring
Conversely, who has a good story about their EverQuest character?
I've gotten to the point in the campaign where every other encounter the PCs aren't being laid low by combat, but are seriously endangered by a single poor roll on a saving throw.If every other encounter is "save or die" then you're overusing it. Not a problem with the system, its a problem with implementation.
I dont agree, I dislike the save or die system. Also at high level these rolls occur more and more often. I would be happy to see a system that came up with an alternative. This really only matters if you are running a campaign where all parties (GM and Player included) have something invested in having the same characters confront the BBEG at 15th level as started at 1st level. If it is a one off dungeon then greater casualties are fine.
Having said this I agree with the earlier sentiment that heroism isnt heroism if you were not putting anything at risk.
My reading of the Paladin smite abilities on Enworld are the greatest thing so far to have turned me off 4th edition.
[Old-Timer Rant]
Back in the day, we had a term for campaigns that granted large rewards for low risk activities: Monty Haul. 4e, more and more, sounds as if the "standard" will be much closer to Monty Haul than in the past (Faster Leveling! Super-Awesome Abilities Every Level-Up! Destroy Mooks by the Score!).
One of the central themes of D&D is that the adventurers are special because they take greater risks than most people. 4e seems to invert that paradigm: adventurers take greater risks because they are special (granted, 3.x had some of that with NPC classes, but 4e seems to be taking this much further). Plus, the risks that the adventurers actually face are being nerfed. Where's the sense of accomplishment in winning easy battles? Heroism requires overcoming difficulties that are difficult, with real consequences for failure. Death should be a credible threat when fighting against the "Hordes of Darkness" that surround the "Points of Light."
[/Old-Timer Rant]
Besides, unlike WoW (or other MMOs), character death is (usually) not a "campagn-stopping" issue. In an MMO, character death forces the player to start over from the beginning. In an RPG, the player can create a new character of the approriate level and take up where the old character left off.
I really think that this is going to be very true. I don't like the idea of no risk of death.
The only advantage this edition brings is that men will be the worst monsters again, because if you have a "No such thing as an NPC" rule, then all the NPC's will be built the same way the PC's are, so six characters who are NPCs against six characters who are PC's should yield the same result and be a fair fight.
Nothing else will be though.
|
|
4E is High Fantasy. It isn't Sword and Sorcery. The progression you delineate is a general trend toward more and more High Fantasy in D&D. Perhaps you can say D&D started as a Sword and Sorcery and Low Fantasy hybrid, but I am sure a lot of people would argue against it.
What is certainly true is the move towards more high fantasy with each edition.
Since I am providing links, there is also Dark Fantasy, but it has less to do with the presence or absence of magic and is more associated with the nature of magic (darker).
There is clearly a lot of overlap in these definitions, and I for one don't agree with them on many points.
If one were to lay them out from gritty realism to super-power I think the consensus would be:
Sword and Sorcery
Low Fantasy
High FantasyI would really like to see D&D re-branded as 3 versions, one for each type of fantasy. If they could do some sort of core rules that are consistent among them all, then have the "fantasy style" core books as an add on, that may work. But I honestly understand why its "pick one and stick with it". D&D 3E I classify as high fantasy, although its flexible enough to knock it down to Sword and Sorcery. 4E is clearly a more into a Higher Fantasy realm.
I think we are moving into a new classification, really. Super-Fantasy is a good term...kind of like super heroes, but in a fantasy setting.
Thank you. These clarifications are really useful and illuminating (no sarcasm, I like when thing area clarified for a better discussion).
So that means that I'm all for Sword & Sorcery and Low Fantasy.As I regularly tweak my campaigns for a higher than usual lethality degree - I have very experienced and cunning players, with somewhat jaded tastes - the whole aforementioned point meets an open wide door here.
Oh, and I'm also getting a "In 4E poison saves versus YOU!" bumper sticker. That gave me a good laugh.
This was worse because this character has been killed by save or die effects before, in the same campaign. I'm not saying all save or die effects are bad, but I've gotten to the point in the campaign where every other encounter the PCs aren't being laid low by combat, but are seriously endangered by a single poor roll on a saving throw.I think there should be a real possibility of character death. I'm not so sure that possibility should ever rely on a single roll of the die. Everyone rolls ones sometimes. A single bad roll in an evening shouldn't result in a player being sidelined for the rest of the night.
Sidelining isn't a fault of a system having save or die effects. It's the result of not being prepared as a player in the event a save or die effect hits you. Does anyone ever create more than one character in advance anymore? It sure doesn't sound like it to me. I *require* my players to have backup characters, just so the dreaded sitting around never occurs. As a player, I loathe the idea of not having backups, someone I can hand to the DM and have him insert the character into the storyline somewhere, and off I go again.
|
|
Because we all know that having a character die at a seemingly random point in the story and being replaced by a different but seemingly ever ready but never present before now character is never detrimental to the game.
You mean having the replacement fall slowly from the sky, flashing a little bit to show he's invincible for the first round isn't a good idea? Thats the last time I get my RPG inspiration from a video game, I just don't know any believable way to introduce a new character.
/sarcasm
|
|
Remember folks - less lethal, not non-lethal.
Risk should always be there. The heroic encounter should always risk the death of a PC. As it stands D&D currently has too many ways to make that death meaningless and somewhat random.
When I kill a PC it should be in a long hard fight with a big nasty bad guy and not because of a particularly unlucky roll.
While gaming today (with our brand new 1st level group), we were almost killed when we fell into a pit trap nobody noticed. The battles were nasty, but a simple trap nearly killing three PCs? That would have been ignoble deaths. So, lethality is a necessary part of the game to keep the excitement in it - but save or die an ignoble death does not appeal to me, especially if it is a random trap placed without proper cause.
If the designers manage to create rules that reflect that, it would be ok to me. But it looks like endangering PCs gets harder, with healing occurring as byproduct of offensive maneuvers, as with the paladins smite and hinted at for the cleric. It is to me part of the tactical challenge to heal in the right moment, and this "auto-healing" lessens the challenge.
Stefan
While I agree with most of what's being said here (most of my greatest glory stories are guys who died in awesome ways) I think there's a difference between a lack of "save or die" mechanics and zero lethality.
A lot of what was really sad about the old-school dungeon crawls were malevolent, undramatic things that would just kill you without a fight, without the chance to do something daring or cool to get out of it. You roll the number required or you die.
I've got an acquantance who refused to roleplay for years because of his first experience on ye olde battlemap. He spent an hour making a character he really liked. He turned left in the dungeon instead of right, rolled low on a d20 and was dead. The game, his whole first experience with our favorite game, was over in like eighteen seconds. He crumpled up his paper, shrugged dissapointedly, and left.
Yarg! That's not glorious or dangerous. That's just dumb.
Now mind you, I'm not suggesting a nerfball version of D&D. Heck the creatures we all love are the ones that just murder characters. Take the rust monster example. It was based on a cheesy 10 cent plastic toy the developers bought and statted up. Why the lasting appeal? Because everyone's got a story about how they got owned by one. Why do people love beholders--because wow they are just tough and mean like crazy! Right?
So what I'd love would be a compromise, where what Beowulf says is true "luck and courage can save an undoomed man". Things can be lethal, but there's always wiggleroom. You have the chance to climb out of the pile of doo-doo, or to bury yourself worse. Drag things out, make them into real dramatic moments, reward cleverness and desparation with bonuses and boons. Throw the dogs a bone for crying out loud. But then when death finally does take them...and you know it will...let them go out like a stud with a big awesome death scene that makes everyone go "dude!"
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
When I kill a PC it should be in a long hard fight with a big nasty bad guy and not because of a particularly unlucky roll.
That reminds me of a story.
My friend E. has run the same D&D campaign for over 25 years. Editions of the game system have come and gone, but she still plods on, week after week, with games that start with the "dungeon looting" trope but can unexpectedly blossom into all mannor of things. It's unbelievable what kind of ancient wonders show up in a mile-deep dwarven ruin.
So, one day, 18 years ago, this 6th-Level party is trouping through the emptied-out parts of the Dwarven City, heading for the current edge of the mapped territory, when the party runs into something E. calls an "acid beast," a tough-hided magical beast about the size of a badger, that squirts acid. It's a CR 2 monster, an annoyance for the party.
But it gets initiative, aims at the wizard, attack, rolls a critical, confirms, and kills the PC. The rest of the party break the acid beast into bits, and then they go back into town to get the wizard raised. And the system shock roll fails. And other attempts fail.
And it's all just really bad dice rolls, but there it stood. The party divvied up the character's loot, the player rolled up a new character, and the campaign went on.
Four years later, one of those spectacular moments in the campaign was happening. Some really awful event was about to take place, like the dark fey were about to break free and loose all manner of havok on the world, and there really wasn't anything that the PC's could do, until one character stepped forward with the one item that could seal the fair doorway. And it was an item from the fallen character, which was now wielded by the sole PC whose background allowed her to accomplish the task.
E. said, afterwards, that all PC's deaths should be meaningful, but sometimes the meaning isn't obvious at first. She'd been looking, and after four years, found a way to bring purpose to a random death-by-acid-beast.
And something like that will never happen in crosswired's campaigns. Because PC deaths should never happen due to a particularly unlucky roll.
By the way, crosswired, are your PC's ever afraid of non-climactic battles?
Thank you, Chris Mortika, for saying it better than I would have.
No one is saying that PCs shouldn't die. They are saying they shouldn't die because of random, arbitrary events that they are helpless to do anything about (e.g. save or die effects).
That reminds me of a story....
E. said, afterwards, that all PC's deaths should be meaningful, but sometimes the meaning isn't obvious at first. She'd been looking, and after four years, found a way to bring purpose to a random death-by-acid-beast.
In the story above, the fact that the wizard died from a save or die effect -- oh actually, upon re-reading, it wasn't a save or die effect, which makes it even less likely that the story has real relevance. No matter how the wizard died, it has no bearing on how four years later the DM found a way to bring back the memory of the beloved PC. The random death didn't achieve "purpose" -- saying "oh hey this was the item I took from so-and-so when s/he died" doesn't give the death purpose, though it's a nice opportunity to reminisce.
One more story about dying being more heroic than surviving...
To get to the death part, we encountered a hag that inflicted a Cloudkill spell, and the poor rogue/cleric failed his save. In the meantime, he had converted a dwarven PC to worship of Aether, and he built a magnificnet mausoleum, complete with everburning flames. Additionally, several NPCs had been converted. The site would eventually become a pilgrimage destination.
Again, it isn't the death itself that gives this story meaning. It is that the character stayed alive long enough to evangelize, build a mausoleum, and create a following, and then when he died (whether in a long battle or with one unlucky roll -- it doesn't matter), what he achieved in life lived on and grew.
Someone said that being a hero is taking risks. It isn't just that. It is taking risks and achieving something great. Anyone can play Russian roulette with a wand of disintegrate and hope to make his save -- that doesn't make him a hero. Yes, history is full of tragic heroes. Perhaps the hero doesn't ultimately survive, but at least she achieved something. Leonidas and the 300 are not heroes simply because they took a risk. It is because they stood their ground well, and they went down fighting.
No one is saying that it should be a walk in the park for PCs. Risk of death should certainly be a part of the game. But why must that risk take the form of arbitrary save-or-die effects? There are plenty of other types of risks that will give PCs a lot more satisfaction in facing, and allow them to do something truly heroic before they die.
I like less-lethal D&D for the same reason I don't play Call of Cthulhu: I really can't see the point in spending any kind of time developing a character if the character I now know and love will be very thoroughly permanently dead within two sessions.
Remember folks - less lethal, not non-lethal.
Risk should always be there. The heroic encounter should always risk the death of a PC. As it stands D&D currently has too many ways to make that death meaningless and somewhat random.
When I kill a PC it should be in a long hard fight with a big nasty bad guy and not because of a particularly unlucky roll.
Roger that.
Put that way I can agree with you. Still, I do like some save or die, because it just plain scares the s$** out of me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
just thought of another reason for Save or Die type effects and lethality.
to remind players that 'all bets are off' and even big damn heroes can die.
Think of Wash in Serenity. There was not dramatic fight, or loss of hit points or anything. But that harpoon to the chest told everyone that there might be no getting out of it.
and I'll point out that Alan Tudyek, despite loving Wash and the Serenity universe, joked about it. "Joss, why does my script stop at 228 and everyone else gets to 260?" That's the attitude I try to take.