|
I think a more accurate statement is that "no matter what you do, you wont die from ONE roll". This might actually encourage players to touch strange glyphs, or try to open a door, or whatever without fear that some bizarre trap is going to instantly kill them.
This kind of thing exists in Age of Worms in the...
Hmm, but the DM designs these Traps (or uses the adventure with these traps)
If he knows that his players play PCs that are curious or need to touch everything he should cater to this style.He can always design a Trap with a less deadly effect, he can always lower the DC.
On the other hand, trying to steal the gems form the bloodcusted altar in the High temple of the Death God is ALWAYS a bad idea.
Here, IMHO, the DM can and should be merciless.
Not all parties have the same playstyle. There are those who like it deadly and there are those who like it more cinematic.
Nothing wrong with different playstyles.
But as 1st/2nd edition was firmly in the save or die style of play, 3rd edition was, IMHO, in the middle ground. From what I know, 4th edition will be on the other side of the scale.
I have no probelm with making things up on the fly or the DM just shooting from the hip for the sake of a cool fast-paced story.....
But arent these guys supposed to be playtesting the new game's mechanics?
Why? Their customers will do it for free. Just like for D&D3.
|
|
Sure does. And 4th Edition, unless it takes the GM completely out of the equation, isn't going to be able to do a thing to stop a GM from putting something at the entrance of the dungeon that can kill the entire party. That kind of scenario is not the games fault.
Its not the GMs fault either. Its also the fault of the mod writer and the whole EL nonsense.
10 foot pit - spikes at the bottom.
4 player party.
Rogue and Cleric in the front Wizards and Ranger in the back.
Rogue misses the search check.
Rogue and Cleric blow the balance check.
They each go splat/poke and die.
GM announces - OK that was stupid. No more pits. You guys are alive as we take a step back in time.
GM (me) takes a pen and crosses out all remaining pit traps from the map.
And in that example, it was the GMs 'fault' that the party lived, because he was smart enough to say, 'Wow, this mod writer didn't think things through, this is a party for 1st level characters, not people with double digit hit points and able to make Search DCs of 20-25 reliably.'
If the GM had chosen to say, 'Fine, everybody dies. Suck it up, I'm physically incapable of not using what's written in this adventure, because independent thought terrifies me,' then it would also be the GMs 'fault' for getting his party killed off.
Nothing here is going to change in 4E, unless 4E does something to stop GMs from being able to drop overpowered encounters on the party. There isn't a rules-fix for this. Bad GMs are bad GMs, in rules-heavier games like GURPS and in rules-fluffy games like Amber Diceless or LARP (arguably, they are *worse* in more freeform games).
Are bad GMs, who hew slavishly to encounters-as-written even if their party is radically different than the NPCs the adventure was written for, a problem? Yeah. But 4E isn't anymore likely to fix that 'problem,' than 3E, 2E, 1E or any of the other games out there have. The only way this could be 'fixed,' would be to give the players some sort of 'cheat death' tokens, taking the power to kill PCs out of the GMs hands, or perhaps a big red button that drops the GM into a tank of sharks-with-frikkin-laser-beams-strapped-to-their-frikkin-heads.
Word on 'EL nonsense,' though. It's a meaningless metric, given how radically two 2nd level characters of the same class can vary in power level.
|
/threadjack
Have you ever played Paintball? Have you seen those 40 something, overweight, balding dads try and do a shoulder roll to try and dodge paintballs but end up winded and on their back with a sprained neck and lit up like a christmas tree as they are peppered with paint?
Yeah...the fearless article conjures that image.
ROFLMAO
/threadjack
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
/threadjack
Have you ever played Paintball? Have you seen those 40 something, overweight, balding dads try and do a shoulder roll to try and dodge paintballs but end up winded and on their back with a sprained neck and lit up like a christmas tree as they are peppered with paint?
Yeah...the fearless article conjures that image.
ROFLMAO
/threadjack
That would be my preference for a mechanical solution to any proposed action by the party:
PLAYER: "I leap across the 10' chasm and grab the extended arm of the statue of Hextor"
DM: (pulling out a tape measure and dragging the coffee table away from the couch) "Okay, get on the couch"'
PLAYER: "What?"
DM: "Get on the couch, leap from there to the lighting fixture. If you miss, you have to land on the coffee table or we climb up on the roof to calculate falling damage."
Its not the GMs fault either. Its also the fault of the mod writer and the whole EL nonsense.
I completely disagree. Part of the responsibility of presenting a game system that advertises level appropriate challenges is ensuring it lives up to this promise.
The biggest failure of random save or die effects (or the 3.5 crit system, or some high level spells) is that the DM cannot predict when something is going to instantly and mercilessly kill a character, and in such a short timespan that there is absolutely nothing the player can do to prevent it. (Or even just display some heroism...or stupidity...)
IME this has lead to DM's simply fudging these scenarios or using houserules like action points to cheat death. This is the direct result of poor game design and NOT a sign of failure on the DM's part.
There are aspects of 3.5 that WotC really is trying to improve from a gamist perspective. This is clearly one of them.
Take a low level example in 3.5: sleep. My player's don't have an elf in the party. They encounter a low level wizard who wins initiative. I decided beforehand that either it made sense for the wizard to have sleep in this world, or I thought I wanted to try this spell as a 'fun challenge' or perhaps for story reasons. I have the wizard cast sleep. All of the party members fail their saves.
From a purely gamist perspective, the player's could do nothing tactically to improve their fate once the battle started. That is bad. As a long term strategy they could boost their saves, but the fight still comes down to one single die roll (well, two if you count initiative).
But it doesn't have to be like that! The party could fall asleep in 3 rounds instead of instantly dropping to the ground. They could go from rubbing their eyes the first round to being drowsy the second to going prone the third and then finally being helpless. During that time the party still gets to act and make decisions that will improve their outcome.
The only decision the DM made was to give the NPC a spell that is extremely commmon amongst traditional D&D adventurers. How is this a bad DMing?
Isn't it possible that WotC is actually trying to fix legitimate gamism failures and not just making things 'dumb'?
|
|
This is precisely what I DON'T like. When I get attacked, I want my saving throw in MY hands, not hidden behind a screen, not stuffed in a secret box, none of that. Even if the saving throw is completely unmakable, I have a CHANCE to roll a 20.
It will be very easy to flip the 4E mechanic to have the player roll a save rather than present a defense.
But at the heart of the matter I do agree. Of all the changes made for 4E this is the one that bugs me the most. D&D should have saving throws.
|
|
Set,
When I run a mod I do not have the time to evaluate every encounter and challenge to see if they will require alteration. I assume that a mod has been tested and that it is appropriate for the level indicated.
One of the promising aspects of 4E is that it will be more forgiving in that regard making it a better experience as a player and GM.
It just seems to me that nothing kills characters anymore ..... watered down traps .... improved healing .... abilities that keep them going non-stop ..... I've always liked that unknown factor that something bad could happen to us .....
Something bad can still happen to you, it just doesn't happen so fast that you have no options whatsoever afterwards. There may be nothing you can do to save yourself, but you can at least make one last heroic attack or say something or help someone.
And don't even get me started on the spells or on how rarely rolling a natural one happens.
1 in 20?
With 4 players, 1 in 5 rounds?
Please, I want you to get started on it...
|
|
I think that the bottom line of this whole agruement over the Fearless article can be summed up like this. There needs to be a middle group between characters traipsing through the dungeon pulling every lever and talking smack to ancient dragons and taking 20 to search and cast detect magic on every five foot square. Players shouldn't be completely fearless, but they also shouldn't be afraid to step on the next stone in the dungeon floor. The article basically says that 4E is strongly biased towards the "completely fearless" approach which many of us feel is a very bad thing.
|
|
I think that the bottom line of this whole agruement over the Fearless article can be summed up like this. There needs to be a middle group between characters traipsing through the dungeon pulling every lever and talking smack to ancient dragons and taking 20 to search and cast detect magic on every five foot square. Players shouldn't be completely fearless, but they also shouldn't be afraid to step on the next stone in the dungeon floor. The article basically says that 4E is strongly biased towards the "completely fearless" approach which many of us feel is a very bad thing.
I agree 100% that there needs to be a middle ground. The mechanics of the game do not provide one currently and i too worry that 4E may swing too far in the other direction.
|
|
The article basically says that 4E is strongly biased towards the "completely fearless" approach which many of us feel is a very bad thing.
I agree 100% that there needs to be a middle ground. The mechanics of the game do not provide one currently and i too worry that 4E may swing too far in the other direction.
I agree with both of you that 4th seems to lean towards the "kender" approach to gaming.
I also agree that SoD effects take the fun out of a game for some groups.
But again there are easy fixes that help to navigate this cliff. You could rule that SoD effects do not kill the PC but put him at "Deaths Door" ie. -9hp + Con. bonus (so with con 14 you are at -7 (-9+2)hp.
I think that the bottom line of this whole agruement over the Fearless article can be summed up like this. There needs to be a middle group between characters traipsing through the dungeon pulling every lever and talking smack to ancient dragons and taking 20 to search and cast detect magic on every five foot square. Players shouldn't be completely fearless, but they also shouldn't be afraid to step on the next stone in the dungeon floor. The article basically says that 4E is strongly biased towards the "completely fearless" approach which many of us feel is a very bad thing.
But this is a false premise.
There are several 'fear factors'in a game. How challenging and how often difficult traps are is up to the DM to decide. He can always put fear into his campaign, regardless of the rules.
On the other hand, 'courage factor' is entirely dependent on the reliability of the rules. If the rules have a very high degree of probability, as is the case with save or die, power attack, high levels spells and crit multipliers, then the DM and the party has no control of their level of fear. This is a bad thing. As you said, different groups have different playstyles, and both sides should be supported. In this case, you can create fear very easily, but it's very hard to take it away if it's ingrained into a flawed ruleset.
|
|
I also agree that SoD effects take the fun out of a game for some groups.
But again there are easy fixes that help to navigate this cliff. You could rule that SoD effects do not kill the PC but put him at "Deaths Door" ie. -9hp + Con. bonus (so with con 14 you are at -7 (-9+2)hp.
Here is my thing about house rules - I don't like them, I don't use them. I have no time to test them.
I don't want to fiddle with my RPG. I just want rules that work.
|
|
Good point Takasi ..... and as far as the 1 in 20 issue .... my players NEVER seem to roll ones .... they are just lucky I guess ... we use the same dice and I see their rolls ... ones just rarely seem to happen to us.
However, you point about "1 in 20 .. with 4 players and 5 rounds" doesn't account for the fact that all those rolls were NOT for sudden death effects ....
We are at the climax moment of a mod. The evil cleric of this-and-such is opening a portal to the Abyss to let big nasty into Greyhawk.
Our only hope is to get him to drop a relic he using for the ceremony.
We cannot get to him but we can shoot it out of his hand.
My Order of the Bow Initiate is up to the task.
I activate my talisman of true strike (thank you Gran March regional mod!) I call on a boon from the ghost we freed in a previous mod.
My total to hit modifier is now +52.
As I roll the die someone (maybe it was me) says just don't roll a 1.
Yep - it came up a 1.
All hell breaks loose - literally.
|
|
Here is my thing about house rules - I don't like them, I don't use them. I have no time to test them.
I don't want to fiddle with my RPG. I just want rules that work.
Hah! Do you really think that 4th will not open NEW holes to fall in?
I bet you that a few days after 4th is out there will be house rules and fixes for things that were overlooked!
|
|
Here is my thing about house rules - I don't like them, I don't use them. I have no time to test them.
I don't want to fiddle with my RPG. I just want rules that work.
Hah! Do you really think that 4th will not open NEW holes to fall in?
I bet you that a few days after 4th is out there will be house rules and fixes for things that were overlooked!
Oh sure. There will be holes. Most holes take time to find and then they only become irritating after years of play.
I'm sorry if this is getting off topic in regard to the topic . . . I'm trying to not fully pay attention to anything in regard to 4e until I look at the actual books.
But, in regard to the Save or Die situations that (from what I think I've heard) are attempting to be removed from 4e, and pulling over some of what I picked up from the topic of what exactly hit points are supposed to represent . . . the vibe I'm getting is that it's entirely possible that 4e could still have spells/traps/situations that are SvI rather than SvD, that is "Save versus Incapacitation".
It seems that WotC is trying to make it harder to kill characters because they've said "Having a character die just isn't fun." and the threat of the SvD mechanics is that your character is taken out of the action. SvI could fit that same role, maybe taking the character out of action for the rest of the session, but still doesn't force the player to roll new ability scores.
Reminds me (and yes, I realize that successful analogies like this is what's turning people away from 4e) of back when I played Final Fantasy 2 on the Super Nintendo . . . some one "dies" in battle, is sitting at 0 hit points, but outside of combat, they are still displayed on the screen as I'm walking over the world map. If a "cut scene" started, they'd still be "alive" to participate in the conversations.
It seems that WotC is trying to make it harder to kill characters because they've said "Having a character die just isn't fun." and the threat of the SvD mechanics is that your character is taken out of the action. SvI could fit that same role, maybe taking the character out of action for the rest of the session, but still doesn't force the player to roll new ability scores.
This is another false premise though. "Forcing" the player is the key word here.
Having a character die CAN be fun. People enjoy battles, and can't enjoy success unless there is a chance for failure. I think what is NOT fun is having a character die and feeling like there were very few options (if any) to prevent it (or to be heroic once it happens).
And it's also not fun to be forced to be cowardly in order to survive. A DM can always ratchet up the challenge to make you cowardly, but if the rules force you to be cowardly by default then there's little a DM can do to help you be heroic (besides downright cheating).
Added heroism requires changes to the rules. Things like nerfing power attack, changing how criticals work, removing instantaneous death spells (death will happen from spells, it's just not immediate without player choice), stretching out combat by lowering the average amount of damage dealt (iterative attacks for example) and increasing hit points.
I DO NOT see how this makes the game easier for players. I DO see how this makes the game more fair and balanced. It can be just as deadly and dangerous, but it's drawn out to allow more options for both players and the DM.
And it's also not fun to be forced to be cowardly in order to survive. A DM can always ratchet up the challenge to make you cowardly, but if the rules force you to be cowardly by default then there's little a DM can do to help you be heroic (besides downright cheating).
Caution in the face of risk is not cowardice.
Boldness in risk's absence is not heroic.-Frank
|
|
Its not the GMs fault either. Its also the fault of the mod writer and the whole EL nonsense.
10 foot pit - spikes at the bottom.
4 player party.
Rogue and Cleric in the front Wizards and Ranger in the back.
Rogue misses the search check.
Rouge and Cleric blow the balance check.
They each go splat/poke and die.
GM announces - OK that was stupid. No more pits. You guys are alive as we take a step back in time.
GM (me) takes a pen and crosses out all remaining pit traps from the map.
Spiked pits are stupid?
Someone better tell the Viet Cong...they seemed to rate them very highly.
Maybe I fall into the Simulationist camp, but why shouldn't someone stick a pit trap in the entrance to their lair?
If I'm a 4hp kobold, I sure as hell don't want a hungry bear wandering into my home. Or, for that matter, a group of psychopathic humans, dwarves, elves, with their arrogant belief that they have some Manifest Destiny to commit genocide on my entire race, regardless of whether we present any danger.
It would be so much fairer if we put out a table with milk and cookies for them, and a comfy lounge area, for them to rest in. They must be tired after their hard journey, and we wouldn't want them to become tired whilst swinging their weapons repeatedly into our faces.
While we're at it, we should remove any locks from the doors and chests, in case it frustrates any parasitic burglars who wish to leech off our hard work, blunt our weapons to make them conform to Health and Safety guidelines (You could hurt someone with that!). Then we could line up to put our heads on a chopping block, and offer up our worthless lives to the PCs and their divine magnificence.[/sarcasm]
Caution in the face of risk is not cowardice.
Boldness in risk's absence is not heroic.
Life without the courage for death is slavery.
There can be no caution against the random and unpredictable inevitability of death in 3.5, only fear of pointless impotence. Boldness is belittled and cowardice is coddled.
|
|
If I'm a 4hp kobold, I sure as hell don't want a hungry bear wandering into my home. Or, for that matter, a group of psychopathic humans, dwarves, elves, with their arrogant belief that they have some Manifest Destiny to commit genocide on my entire race, regardless of whether we present any danger.
Actually it always bugged me that critters would have a lair guarded by a trap at the entrance. Would you live at a place that had a minefield under the welcome mat?
Sentries make sense. Locks make sense. Alarm systems make sense. But pits that the kids could fall into?
|
|
The biggest failure of random save or die effects (or the 3.5 crit system, or some high level spells) is that the DM cannot predict when something is going to instantly and mercilessly kill a character,
Dude, if you can't 'predict' that a save or die spell will result in a character having to 'save or die,' then it's not the game. It's kind of a no-brainer. If save or dies detract from your fun, *don't use them.* Simplest thing in the world. Same thing with crits. Don't give the swarm of kobolds picks, if you don't want to see a bunch of x3 crits going off.
I don't like Flumph. I *don't use them.* I don't like Elminster. I *don't use him.* Just because some yob wrote it in a book I own, does not mean that I have to work it into my game. No Die, Vecna, Die. No Phaerimm. No Time of Troubles. No Yellow/Brown/Fuchsia/Periwinkle Dragons. No save or dies. No level drain (ick, hate 'em!). No Mordenkainen's Disjunction ('cause that's just plain mean). No 'jack up the caster level to 40 to butcher anything with a Holy Word' cheese either. I don't need a degree in rocket science to note that no good can come of allowing that.
Set,
When I run a mod I do not have the time to evaluate every encounter and challenge to see if they will require alteration. I assume that a mod has been tested and that it is appropriate for the level indicated.One of the promising aspects of 4E is that it will be more forgiving in that regard making it a better experience as a player and GM.
In my experience, it takes less time to read an adventure than to run it.
If, for instance, I was called all of a sudden during a Convention, I had an adventure shoved into my hands, and didn't have time to even read the boxed text before the players were screaming directives at me, then yeah, I might not realize, '1st level party, pit (DC 25 to find) that does 4d6, skip that.' But normally, that sort of thought takes me less time to think than it has taken me to type here.
I definitely have the time to 'evaluate' the encounter, since that happens concurrently with the process of me *reading* the encounter. Sometimes I scribble changes or 'enhancements' into a scene, usually flavor text or changes that will set up for scenes I intend to add later (like changing the color of some black candles in temple room B because I established earlier that summoning candles are yellow wax with green flecks of special herbs embedded in them, and I want that to be consistent, since it will be a clue later when they find some more of those candles as a valuable clue). Most of this stuff, I think about in the car, at the gym or on the 'throne.' It's not like I waste hours poring over books doing 'really boring homework.' I've got stuff to do and places to go and really mind-numbing sci-fi monster movies to watch that make me cry over the brain cells that are going to be wasted remembering how awful Killer Raptor! was.
If 4E is going to make it more practical for someone to DM a game *without even reading the adventure beforehand,* then bully for 4E, but I don't find myself needing to do that. I game on Tuesdays, which means I have 6 1/2 days between play sessions to spend 5 minutes glancing over the ~4 combat encounters scheduled to occur and making sure nothing there screams, *TPK ahead! Danger Will Robinson!*
Since I generally re-write all of the encounters. (It took me 90 minutes to write up six full encounters, with up to eight mobs each, and in at least two of them, three different types of classed mob. The next adventure was higher level, will last a month of playtime, and took *two hours* to write all of the NPCs from the ground up.)
But since I *wrote them,* I don't even have to waste five minutes evaluating whether or not they will cause a TPK or have Save-or-dies or other 'inconvenient' time-wasting features, like summoning spells that I don't care to use when DMing ('Cause I've got enough to do. If I want more mobs on the board, I woulda put more mobs on the board and not wasted NPC spell slots on it!).
Good point Takasi ..... and as far as the 1 in 20 issue .... my players NEVER seem to roll ones .... they are just lucky I guess ... we use the same dice and I see their rolls ... ones just rarely seem to happen to us.
However, you point about "1 in 20 .. with 4 players and 5 rounds" doesn't account for the fact that all those rolls were NOT for sudden death effects ....
We are at the climax moment of a mod. The evil cleric of this-and-such is opening a portal to the Abyss to let big nasty into Greyhawk.
Our only hope is to get him to drop a relic he using for the ceremony.
We cannot get to him but we can shoot it out of his hand.
My Order of the Bow Initiate is up to the task.
I activate my talisman of true strike (thank you Gran March regional mod!) I call on a boon from the ghost we freed in a previous mod.
My total to hit modifier is now +52.
As I roll the die someone (maybe it was me) says just don't roll a 1.
Yep - it came up a 1.
All hell breaks loose - literally.
Would you still remember this game as well if the failure wasn't so drastic?
If I'm a 4hp kobold, I sure as hell don't want a hungry bear wandering into my home. Or, for that matter, a group of psychopathic humans, dwarves, elves, with their arrogant belief that they have some Manifest Destiny to commit genocide on my entire race, regardless of whether we present any danger.
Actually it always bugged me that critters would have a lair guarded by a trap at the entrance. Would you live at a place that had a minefield under the welcome mat?
Sentries make sense. Locks make sense. Alarm systems make sense. But pits that the kids could fall into?
Pssst....secret exits and entrances designed for small creatures only for trapless egress and ingress, or even pit traps designed for a certain mass of creature, therefore the wee ones dance over the pit cover effortlessly, but the beer-gutted dwarf plummets onto the pin-cushion of doom.
While we're on the subject, many folks are bringing up Indiana Jones as an example of the type of wahoo play they want....did everyone forget the first 10-15 minutes of the first movie where Indy and his cannon-fodder, uh, hirelings, spend forever creeping around and trying to navigate various boobytraps, just like a paranoid party searching every square foot for danger? And what were the consequences when caution and prudence were thrown out the window in favour of reckless, what-the-hell abandon? ;-) ;-)
I favour a blend of playstyles, and truth be told, if my players don't enter an elaborate room or hall and get a nervous grin on their paranoid faces as they begin to wonder what my rat-bastard arse has in store for them, then I feel I'm not doing my job right, and those moments of nervous anticipation are like RPG gold to my players and me.
Obviously, your mileage may vary...
Cheers,
Colin
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Actually it always bugged me that critters would have a lair guarded by a trap at the entrance. Would you live at a place that had a minefield under the welcome mat?Sentries make sense. Locks make sense. Alarm systems make sense. But pits that the kids could fall into?
Well, we really should get Kobold Cleaver in to explain but I figure the trap is (1) geared to someone heavy, (2) possible to avoid if you know it is there, (3) designed to get rid of the stupider children, or that (4) this is not the main entrance.
Well, we really should get Kobold Cleaver in to explain but I figure the trap is (1) geared to someone heavy, (2) possible to avoid if you know it is there, (3) designed to get rid of the stupider children, or that (4) this is not the main entrance.
Damn, beaten to the punch by a mere second!
Would you still remember this game as well if the failure wasn't so drastic?
Now there's a selling point. D&D: Making More Bad Memories.
Would you still remember this game as well if the failure wasn't so drastic?
Absolutely true....I cannot fathom a game session where the roll of a die doesn't carry with it some chance of failure and the (possibly quite entertaining) consequences thereof.
Cheers,
Colin
Would you still remember this game as well if the failure wasn't so drastic?Now there's a selling point. D&D: Making More Bad Memories.
Who says that they are bad memories? I mean, really, in my group the fantastic successes are remembered just as vividly as the spetacular failures (and there's usually more laughter and smiles regarding the failures....that doesn't sound like "bad" memories to me).
Cheers,
Colin
If save or dies detract from your fun, *don't use them.*
It would break verisimilitude for me if the players could cast these spells but NPCs could not.
And again, it's not just save or die. It's instantaneous death effects, power attack, iterative attacks, low hit points, and the non-sweet-spot levels where the math just doesn't work the same anymore. You say ignore it if it isn't fun, but it's ingrained into the entire system. It works for certain groups and monsters at certain levels, but why play that when 4th edition fixes it?
Why houserule 3.5 when 4th edition addresses this?
Who says that they are bad memories? I mean, really, in my group the fantastic successes are remembered just as vividly as the spetacular failures (and there's usually more laughter and smiles regarding the failures....that doesn't sound like "bad" memories to me).
If you want a balanced game that provides tactics and strategy, where karma (stats and player action) is more important than fate (die rolls) then it's a bad memory to lose init to someone and die in the first round before you even get to act.
The opposite is not true. If you want an imbalanced, random game then you can have fun memories dying randomly. It's easier to make an balanced game imbalanced than it is to fix a broken ruleset.
Actually it always bugged me that critters would have a lair guarded by a trap at the entrance. Would you live at a place that had a minefield under the welcome mat?
Sentries make sense. Locks make sense. Alarm systems make sense. But pits that the kids could fall into?
Sure. It's easy enough to teach the kids how to not activate the pit trap. Or set the trap to only trigger at a certain weight so the kids don't trigger it but the big bad adventuring party does.
If you want a balanced game that provides tactics and strategy, where karma (stats and player action) is more important than fate (die rolls) then it's a bad memory to lose init to someone and die in the first round before you even get to act.The opposite is not true. If you want an imbalanced, random game then you can have fun memories dying randomly. It's easier to make an balanced game imbalanced than it is to fix a broken ruleset.
Well, we obviously have quite different definitions of fun....is it less than glorious to be perforated by the trap's poisoned arrow and die in a next to insignificant side-chamber of a dungeon that has very little to do with the actual plot? Well, sure it is. Is it "unfun"? Depends entirely on your playstyle.
In a Thieves' World campaign (god bless Green Ronin :) :) I invented an elaborate background for my character, a good in-character voice, and spent a fair amount of time thinking about what direction I wanted him to go in. He died in a knife fight only tenously linked to the main plot two and a half sessions into the campaign. Did I care? Nope, I laughed about it and rolled up a new character.
The same has been true in every game I've played in or DMed for...sometimes stuff happens...that's life and it can't always be the spectacular climax that puts the nail in your coffin.
What you (and many other, but not all) 4E supporters seem to want is little to no randomosity when it comes to bad things happening to your characters. No wandering monsters, no saving throws that come up as one resulting in very bad fates/death, etc. Death can/should only be the result of highly massive damage in combat or extremely stupid actions on the part of a player/character. And I'm not saying that that is the WRONG way to play.
But it is not the ONLY way to play, and I sure as heck don't want a game system predicated on the philosophy that bad, random events should be minimized almost to the point of being eliminated. It simply isn't my idea of what an RPG based on random, die-generated numbers is about. If you want almost guaranteed success with almost no failure or at least no failure that doesn't occur in a dramatic, scene-stealing, climax of the adventure fashion, hell, just pick the numbers to generate the combat rather than rolling since you're basically narrating a story anyway. Have the good guys miss a few attacks for tension's sake, and have the bad guys look like they're almost at the point of success, but then allow the heroes snatch victory from the jaws of defeat without ever rolling a single random number generator....The heroes will get to be heroes and they might even believe that they were genuinely in danger.
Or you know, just roll behind a screen/fudge everything if you can't stand to have bad things possibly kill a character in a non-dramatic, unrelated to the central plot-point fashion. Either way, if it works for you, that's cool, but it seems like this edition is being designed from the ground up to inherently cater to this philosophy, which really hasn't been there for any of the other editions (least of all 1E and 2E....a little more in 3E, but there was still plenty to kill you).
Quite obviously, YMMV.
Cheers,
Colin
Does 4e "fix" that "problem" too?
(and can we even SAY it "fixes" anything - until the blasted thing comes out? We can say they claim to be addressing certain issues, but can we, with any certainty, say it does or does not do something?)
We pretty much know they are replacing instantaneous death effects for traps, spells and abilities with timed durations, changing power attack, increasing hit points, decreasing damage and iterative attacks and a general design philosophy that tries to extend combat to 5-10 rounds.
These are genuine fixes to that "problem". Does anyone believe these would not lessen random, uncontrollable and unavoidable death?
You can still make random, uncontrollable and unavoidable death using these rules by sticking to status quo encounters, but the whole point of a tailored, gamist experience is to have a level of fairness. It's easier to make the fair unfair than it is to make the unfair fair. Does anyone disagree?
What I want to know is...what's the point of playing a game with no lethality to it? Seriously?
If you try something cool, and screw up, too bad. It happens anyway, no one is perfect. You're bound to screw up. It happens in real life, television, movies, novels...heroes screw up once in awhile and it may even be their death.
Roll up a new damn character and move on.
And, worried about rolling a 1 on a save for death or serious hurt? Dude, what the hell is his problem? Why not just grant the character "Immunity to Everything" if he's worried about a damned 5% chance of screwing up.
Jumping 40-foot at 4th-level? Uh, yeah, doofus, you're FOURTH LEVEL! His freaking DM shouldn't have put such an obstacle, or the damn guy shouldn't have even bothered thinking of making the jump. Leave that stuff for, I dunno, HIGH LEVEL maybe? Seriously, if he's worried about performing a 40-foot jump at 4th-level, is he worried about performing a 300-foot jump at 10th-level?
This guy is a joke. I hate how he blatantly states "3rd Edition would've ruined your game and killed you for jumping 40-feet at 4th-level, but not 4th Edition!"
Can 4th Edition also iron my clothes, feed me snacks, and drive me to work while we're playing too? Ugh...give me one 4E designer...just one...I've got 3 and a half editions worth of D&D to whack them with.
My answer to it all: DUMB DUMB DUMB.
|
|
Why houserule 3.5 when 4th edition addresses this?
For the bazillionth time, *I* haven't seen 4th edition. I don't *know* that 4th edition 'fixes' this 'problem' that some other people who are not me are having. Does 4th Edition 'address this?' Could be. 3rd edition 'addressed' it, too, just not in a way everyone like, 'cause deciding not to use a monster, spell or feat that one don't like is apparently too hard for some, and they want a game where the GM doesn't actually have to make choices about what to include or not include in their game.
But damn skippy every single person who is pro-4E knows in their bones that it will indeed fix *everything* and work *so much better* and that I am WRONG, WRONG, WRONG for not having major problems playing 3E, which is so horribly broken and very boring and terribly wrongbadfun, like sleeping-with-your-sister bad.
'Cause apparently they have all played 4E already and know all of these things that I don't know, being one of the have-nots who didn't get an advance copy. Or they're psychic and have foreseen the glorious future. Or they're counting sparkle ponies over the rainbow. Possibly all three.
I dunno. *I* haven't seen it yet, and in the world I live in, having doubt is NOT unreasonable, or a sign of fanaticism, or a symptom of fearing change.
But it is not the ONLY way to play, and I sure as heck don't want a game system predicated on the philosophy that bad, random events should be minimized almost to the point of being eliminated.
It's just the opposite.
In 3.5, the ONLY way to play is to have an unbalanced, random style especially at the non-sweet spots where there is a lot of random variation in damage and instantaneous death effects. Rounds at high levels and very low levels can be over before the end of the first round or they can take dozens of rounds, all using a system the supposedly balanced CR system.
In 4th edition, you have MORE OPTIONS to play. It delivers a better experience if you're a gamist DM: you want a balanced, fair game with a CR system that works, less variation and more strategy. If you DON'T want that, whether it's for verisimilitude (simulationism) or for story (narrative/dramatism) then you still have the option of status quo encounters.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Well, we really should get Kobold Cleaver in to explain but I figure the trap is (1) geared to someone heavy, (2) possible to avoid if you know it is there, (3) designed to get rid of the stupider children, or that (4) this is not the main entrance.
Damn, beaten to the punch by a mere second!
That's because I'm succinct.
What I want to know is...what's the point of playing a game with no lethality to it? Seriously?
There is a huge difference between lethality that is instantaneous and unavoidable vs lethality that allows some degree of options for heroic actions.
No one has said 4th edition is less lethal than 3.5. It's just more consistent when using the CR system, so if you're looking for a balanced game you'll have more options and strategy will actually help you.
And, worried about rolling a 1 on a save for death or serious hurt? Dude, what the hell is his problem? Why not just grant the character "Immunity to Everything" if he's worried about a damned 5% chance of screwing up.
Using the CR system, there's a 100% chance you will roll a 1 at some point and die at higher levels, the only precaution against it is retirement. That is neither realistic (because it uses the CR) nor fair (because it isn't balanced and there's nothing you can do before or after it happens).
Using the CR system, there's a 100% chance you will roll a 1 at some point and die at higher levels, the only precaution against it is retirement. That is neither realistic (because it uses the CR) nor fair (because it isn't balanced and there's nothing you can do before or after it happens).
That my friend, is over exageration. I think you need to reread some of the books. There are options on how to negate save or die effects. It's just not as easy as some people would like.
Players dying randomly isn't the only problem with save-or-die effects, though it is the main one. What happens when the PCs are in a fight where there's only one, or mainly one bad guy and the PC wizard wins initiative and casts a save-or-die spell immediately?
I think we can all agree that it's undesirable to have a whole combat decided by a single die roll, but that's what happens there. Sure to some extent adventure design can minimize the problem, but it can't eliminate it. You could give every villain some sort of death ward effect, but what's the point of letting the wizard have save-or-die spells in the first place if he can't use them?
I dunno. *I* haven't seen it yet, and in the world I live in, having doubt is NOT unreasonable, or a sign of fanaticism, or a symptom of fearing change.
You've seen 3.5.
Instantaneous death effects, power attack, iterative attacks, hit point scaling, crit ranges and extreme damage variance (20d6) are NOT balanced.
All of these issues are being addressed in 4th edition.
I don't see how you can't recognize this as a positive thing for gamist players. If you don't like gamism, that's fine, don't use the CR system. CR was built specifically for gamism, and any simultationist or dramatist who uses it is kidding themselves.
That my friend, is over exageration. I think you need to reread some of the books. There are options on how to negate save or die effects. It's just not as easy as some people would like.
What are these options? Become a god so that 1's aren't automatic failures?
And it's not just save or die. It's anything that can kill you in one round. There are accounts of many high level, supposedly 'balanced' villains who are taken out in one round. This is not balanced gamism.
Take a look at all of the accounts for the APs of players biting it on a save or an enemy who fails one. Or someone who dies before the fight even really starts. It's WAY too common at low and high levels for a gamist experience.
3.5 fails to provide a quality tactical experience during that time, and I've yet to see anyone try to defend that it does. It can provide verisimiltude and story, but actual strategy has less importance when the chances are very high that you are going to die in combat through no fault of your own, whether it's PC or NPC.