# Dragon Editorial:  Fearless



## Shroomy (Feb 21, 2008)

Chris Youngs (though still credited as Chris Thomasson) wrote an article on how the math of 4e has affected his playing style:

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20080220a


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 21, 2008)

Heh. He's not the only one. I'm playing a rogue in my 4E playtest group, and he's one of the most reckless characters I've ever played. (That's just how the character shaped up; it wasn't a deliberate attempt to test the death and dying rules, though I've now done so more than once. ) And I'm having a blast with him.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

The "damn the torpedoes ninjae, full speed ahead" attitude is one I've pimped for a while now, and it's good to see it taking a hold.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

Yikes.

You can take more risks because nothing is going to kill you outright.  He says its less metagaming than it was in 3e, but in its own way its just as much or more.

And the action movie garbage bothers me.  Is this game still playable if you don't want a two dimensional action-explosion fest?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Yikes.
> 
> You can take more risks because nothing is going to kill you outright.  He says its less metagaming than it was in 3e, but in its own way its just as much or more.




_Less_ is going to kill you outright. But trust me, there have been a _few _times where it's only been sheer luck that my character's recklessness didn't result in a replacement PC.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The "damn the torpedoes ninjae, full speed ahead" attitude is one I've pimped for a while now, and it's good to see it taking a hold.




That's the way I've played for quite a while. The typical moment of truth at our game table goes something like:

Player 1 - Someone, stick something in the hole.
Player 2 - Heck no! It might blow up!
Player 3 - [stares at the ceiling]
Player 1 - We shouldn't I guess.
Player 4 - Anyone got a pole?
Player 3 - [stares at the floor]
Player 1 - Maybe we should try it on our way out...
Greylock - Oh, to heck with it! My character sticks his fist in the hole!

*wham*


----------



## Ondo (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> He says its less metagaming than it was in 3e, but in its own way its just as much or more.



No, he says "but now I don't have to metagame and shirk away from certain tasks that I knew carried far more risk in previous editions."  It's pretty obviously true that being bold all the time is less metagamey than being bold, except for a few times where your knowledge of the rules tells you it's too dangerous.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 21, 2008)

I like this, it means you can make good encounters and challenges without risk of massive sudden character death.

I always hated save or die.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Ah yes, reminds me of a game I played years ago in 2e.

We were all looking into a pit in a dungeon after having fought through a bunch of orcs over several encounters. Everyone was hurt, and my character had nearly died once. We weren't sure how deep it was or what was down there. Everyone else debated for a bit whether to go on or turn around and go back, and it was decided that the only sensible thing to do was to turn around. 

Of course, when asked what my vote was, I turned to the DM and said "I jump in the hole."

And it turned out, going on was the best course of action. Whiny scaredy cats shouldn't call themselves "adventurers." My character was more than happy to point that out to them. Adventure to adventure.

_That_ is the type of game I want to play!


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 21, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Ah yes, reminds me of a game I played years ago in 2e.
> 
> We were all looking into a pit in a dungeon after having fought through a bunch of orcs over several encounters. Everyone was hurt, and my character had nearly died once. We weren't sure how deep it was or what was down there. Everyone else debated for a bit whether to go on or turn around and go back, and it was decided that the only sensible thing to do was to turn around.
> 
> ...



Hear hear! 

Charge first, ask questions later never.

Lanefan


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

Ondo said:
			
		

> No, he says "but now I don't have to metagame and shirk away from certain tasks that I knew carried far more risk in previous editions."  It's pretty obviously true that being bold all the time is less metagamey than being bold, except for a few times where your knowledge of the rules tells you it's too dangerous.




Actually, its not, really.  Its rather metagamey to blithely set off traps, knowing they can't actually kill you, when you know that no human being without severe mental problems or suicidal tendencies would actually do that.  But when injury is just a matter of hit points, which can just be replenished, it isn't an issue.

Its the old 'we know a 50' fall will just do 5d6 damage and therefor can't possibly hurt us.  Lets jump'.

I disliked save or die too, but this sounds like too much danger has been snipped out.  If you have 41 hit points, and the trap does 10d6 damage (it could drop you, but can't kill you outright) and the trap unleashes the mummy on the rest of your party, then it matters.  But if it just zaps you for trivial outside of an encounter (or even during), then the threat is meaningless, and you can feel free to take advantage of that fact.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 21, 2008)

Funnily enough, my reading of that was one of not-the-math.  The different courses of action chosen at the rail-gap suggest that the players judged the check DC to be *very* different.  Chris Youngs isn't getting the advantage of a system designed for over-the-top action, he is getting the advantage of a DM who wants over-the-top action and is willing to set DCs accordingly (if untrained checks at lvl 4 are enough let you ride a mine cart at 30mph without disaster, much less make a jump, well, I'm pretty sure that, were I DMing, the DCs would be about 10 points higher...).  Not to mention, swatting *30lb* Darkmantles like bugs with a shield, moving at a mere 30mph?!  Cool is good and all, but it kind of loses its value if its given out for free.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> And it turned out, going on was the best course of action. Whiny scaredy cats shouldn't call themselves "adventurers." My character was more than happy to point that out to them. Adventure to adventure.




IMO, the shift away from paranoid dungeon survival towards reckless insanity is one of the best things D&D has encouraged.

If the new edition fits that mold like my 3rd edition games do, there's some point in it's favor.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> .  Not to mention, swatting *30lb* Darkmantles like bugs with a shield, moving at a mere 30mph?!  Cool is good and all, but it kind of loses its value if its given out for free.




I did wonder about this.  You might take a tentacle off, but splatter?   :\


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 21, 2008)

Yes! Bring on the action movie cinematic play style!


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Not to mention, swatting *30lb* Darkmantles like bugs with a shield, moving at a mere 30mph?! Cool is good and all, but it kind of loses its value if its given out for free.



I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that this was a rule the DM made up on the fly.

But don't let that stop you from raging, of course.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that this was a rule the DM made up on the fly.
> 
> But don't let that stop you from raging, of course.




Actually, that was kind of my point.  If you want action like that described, you can get it in any system.  In 3e, its a simple matter of saying that all athletic DCs will be within reach, no pit will be deep enough to severely hurt those who fall in, no trap will be dangerous enough to severely hurt those who spring it.  Oh, and no encounter will be at CR=PL+3 or more.

If a player tries to play gung-ho with a DM who doesn't cooperate, he will come to grief.  If the DM cooperates, he will do well.  The problems come when the players and DM aren't on the same page, as with the player of the dragonborn, who apparently figured on different (off-the-cuff) skill DCs.

4e may make DMing such campaigns easier, but if so its pretty much only by removing save-or-die effects (which a DM could do in 3e by being selective in monster picking) and maybe by making the default athletic skills easier.  The other aspects of over-the-top involve extremely low skill DCs and easy opposition.  Ramp up danger and difficulty, and the players will ramp up caution.  Easy equation.


----------



## fnwc (Feb 21, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 4e may make DMing such campaigns easier, but if so its pretty much only by removing save-or-die effects (which a DM could do in 3e by being selective in monster picking) and maybe by making the default athletic skills easier.



The number of monsters in 3.5 that have save vs. lose effects increases as you go up the CR tree.


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> IMO, the shift away from paranoid dungeon survival towards reckless insanity is one of the best things D&D has encouraged.



Tell me about it!

I ran a game for a group and they acted like SWAT team mixed with scientists, testing every hole and door and suspicious looking barrel like it was a doorway to the dimension of fangydoom. It got real tiring, real fast.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm hoping the hyper-paranoia goes the way of smashing every fricking crate for tiny amounts of treasure in video games.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 21, 2008)

Yeah this works so well with my games.

With my games I use dungeons and the occasional city/forest encounters as the rock-and-roll, take no questions period of my generally slower more politically/mentally minded games. As such I don't want it slowed down from the PCs being worried sick about save-or-die monsters and traps I want them to charge ahead and face the dangers of the dungeon and then ALL come out panting the other side.


----------



## A'koss (Feb 21, 2008)

A stronger emphasis on cinematic action is _exactly_ what I've been hoping for with 4e. But while these low level (and the odd paragon-level) playtest reports are all well and good - where are the *Epic Level *reports?! 

I'd like to see some examples of what combat is like in the majors...


----------



## Dwelian (Feb 21, 2008)

Hogwash.  4e vs 3e is irrelevant to the fact that if you play for a DM that will kill you off due to one bad die roll, you're simply playing for a bad DM.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 21, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Tell me about it!
> 
> I ran a game for a group and they acted like SWAT team mixed with scientists, testing every hole and door and suspicious looking barrel like it was a doorway to the dimension of fangydoom. It got real tiring, real fast.




  That is, according to some old-timers, the way D&D is _supposed_ to be played, and why the _Tomb of Horrors_ was such a proving ground.

  As for myself, I shed no tears over its passing.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 21, 2008)

Tracy Hickman will be delighted! 

Cheers!


----------



## Rechan (Feb 21, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> That is, according to some old-timers, the way D&D is _supposed_ to be played, and why the _Tomb of Horrors_ was such a proving ground.



Except from what I have heard, nothing, no amount of SWAT teaming really saved you in that. It's just like saying "Flip a coin. Tails, you are out. Heads, you move to the next flip."


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

My solution to dungeons of doom was always to just destroy them without bothering to enter.

Just a much wiser solution for the character to come up with than "okay, I enter the place that will most likely kill me."


----------



## Warbringer (Feb 21, 2008)

I have to say that 4e is turning out to play exactly the way I thought it would ....

Now to work out if I want to run that type of game, and whether 4e can be _toned down_


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

So it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Yeah, its turning out pretty much exactly how I imagined as well.  No risks.  No dread.  Lots of tactical illusionism.  Heroic feats attempted not because the situation demands you take the risk, but just because you can and because well they really aren't risks.  Even players not being able to make sound judgements because the game universe bears so little relationship to the real one.  The worst sort of cornball action movie as the standard of dramatic tension.  It's all there.  Nerfworld.  Everything bounces.  Everything is now the 'I can jump off the 60' cliff because it can't really hurt me' problem.

My suspicion is that the game is something like Diablo II now.  The only thing that kills you is boredom.  That is to say, you get extremely overconfident, stop being even moderately cautious, or stop paying at all attention because the last X fights have been repetitive and that's what kills you.

Now, as far as the actual encounter goes, that's really cool.  I'm all for runaway carts and splating darkmantles on your shield.  But I'm not sure that I'm happy with the idea of the player/character anything but terrified when doing so, and I don't see how this encounter couldn't be ran in 3E with 6th level PC's or so, setting DC's and CR's accordingly.  Essentially, this is a long series of forced CR 1-4 encounters occuring in rapid succession.  It's not a new feature.  You could have run it in 1E using the old mechanics of Dex checks and save vs. paralyzation.

Good encounter design doesn't show off the new system as much as they think it does.  It just shows that they are using sophisticated encounter design.  Bully for them.  

As for splatting darkmantles, well, the trick would be to have them strike perfectly perpendicular to the shield.  If they did that, then the impact would be about equivalent to a 20' fall.  Since the darkmantle only has 6 hp, its quite reasonable that the impact could kill them.  But I'd be very skeptical of your ability to do anything but a glancing blow to a darkmantle while swooping along at 30mph.  But even if we rule only 1d6 damage, thats still potentially enough to kill one, and the flavor of the desription is worth the slight exaggeration IMO.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So it's not a bug, it's a feature.
> 
> Yeah, its turning out pretty much exactly how I imagined as well.  No risks.  No dread.  Lots of tactical illusionism.  Heroic feats attempted not because the situation demands you take the risk, but just because you can and because well they really aren't risks.  Even players not being able to make sound judgements because the game universe bears so little relationship to the real one.  The worst sort of cornball action movie as the standard of dramatic tension.  It's all there.  Nerfworld.  Everything bounces.  Everything is now the 'I can jump off the 60' cliff because it can't really hurt me' problem.




I think my biggest problem with this set up is the heroic feats aren't really heroic anymore.  They're just everyday routine tasks. 



> My suspicion is that the game is something like Diablo II now.  The only thing that kills you is boredom.  That is to say, you get extremely overconfident, stop being even moderately cautious, or stop paying at all attention because the last X fights have been repetitive and that's what kills you.



 Sadly, I suspect that DII will be two slow for 4e pacing. At least going by this article.



> As for splatting darkmantles, well, the trick would be to have them strike perfectly perpendicular to the shield.  If they did that, then the impact would be about equivalent to a 20' fall.  Since the darkmantle only has 6 hp, its quite reasonable that the impact could kill them.  But I'd be very skeptical of your ability to do anything but a glancing blow to a darkmantle while swooping along at 30mph.  But even if we rule only 1d6 damage, thats still potentially enough to kill one, and the flavor of the desription is worth the slight exaggeration IMO.




Oh.  I guess I was confusing darkmantles with something else.  Probably cloakers, since they're essentially the same monster... I didn't realize they were that weak.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> So it's not a bug, it's a feature.
> 
> Yeah, its turning out pretty much exactly how I imagined as well.  No risks.




D&D is risky?



> No dread.




There is plenty of dread. It just plays out over 2 or more die rolls instead of 1. Trust me.



> Lots of tactical illusionism.




D&D isn't an illusion?



> Heroic feats attempted not because the situation demands you take the risk, but just because you can and because well they really aren't risks.




Of course they aren't risks, just as elves aren't real. But for some silly reason people keep thinking the risks are real, so changing the rules to disabuse them of this notion is to be encouraged.



> Even players not being able to make sound judgements because the game universe bears so little relationship to the real one.




However, the game universe now bears even more resemblance to the universe of the action movie. Since geeks know far more about the physics of action movies than the real world, as evidenced by the several incontrovertible proofs of how Darth Maul would so pwn the Borg Cube and not vice-versa, this can only lead to greater versimi verimis vesrimil believability than ever before.



> The worst sort of cornball action movie as the standard of dramatic tension.




You mean the best sort of cornball action movie.



> It's all there.  Nerfworld.  Everything bounces.  Everything is now the 'I can jump off the 60' cliff because it can't really hurt me' problem.
> 
> My suspicion is that the game is something like Diablo II now.  The only thing that kills you is boredom.




Hm. Are you suggesting that 4E will live as long as Diablo II?


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I think my biggest problem with this set up is the heroic feats aren't really heroic anymore.  They're just everyday routine tasks.




Exactly. They _are_ routine everyday tasks for people whose job it is to be heroic, ie PCs. For the average joe who doesn't dare to venture outside his local point of light, they will still be incredible.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. They _are_ routine everyday tasks for people whose job it is to be heroic, ie PCs. For the average joe who doesn't dare to venture outside his local point of light, they will still be incredible.



Yeah, but I don't consider that a good thing.  I don't want to play 'superheroes in chainmail'.  Heroic-Paragon-Epic doesn't suggest Wolverine-Superman-God to me.

And your above post, while quoting Celebrim...
I'm going to be polite and just say that there should be real risks to the *characters*.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I don't consider that a good thing.  I don't want to play 'superheroes in chainmail'.




So remove XP gain and stay at 1st level, while ramping up the opposition.



> And your above post, while quoting Celebrim...
> I'm going to be polite and just say that there should be real risks to the *characters*.




1. There can be no "real risk" to a character, because a character is a flight of fancy with no independent existence and nothing at stake. Perception of risk is everything, and that perception lies in the mind of the player, who is the one with the ability to make decisions and a stake in the outcomes for the character. Many tools are available to manipulate that perception of risk, and the crudest tool of all is "roll a save; if you fail, you die". The SECOND crudest tool of all is "make a skill check; if you fail, you die".

2. Did you not see the line in the article where the character has died already in the game?


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I don't consider that a good thing.  I don't want to play 'superheroes in chainmail'.  Heroic-Paragon-Epic doesn't suggest Wolverine-Superman-God to me.
> 
> And your above post, while quoting Celebrim...
> I'm going to be polite and just say that there should be real risks to the *characters*.




 :\ 

Dude.

At epic levels, yeah, you can kill and become gods.

Though it's more like Conan-Spiderman-Superman.  Becoming a god is an epic destiny.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So remove XP gain and stay at 1st level, while ramping up the opposition.



How does that solve anything?  I mean that seriously.  You're starting out super, apparently.  All sense of verisimilitude and believability is already gone.




> 1. There can be no "real risk" to a character, because a character is a flight of fancy with no independent existence and nothing at stake. Perception of risk is everything, and that perception lies in the mind of the player, who is the one with the ability to make decisions and a stake in the outcomes for the character.




I don't really seen the point of playing goofy semantics with this, but if you insist, there isn't any perception of risk, either, on the part of anyone involved. Its being presented as _Don't think, don't worry, your character won't really be harmed, action, action, action!!!_ If I were an adrenaline junkie on a sugar high, that might appeal to me (though I suspect I'd be jumping out of planes, or something, and not sitting at a table).  And if it does appeal to others thats fine, but don't be too surprised if some people show a negative reaction.



> Many tools are available to manipulate that perception of risk, and the crudest tool of all is "roll a save; if you fail, you die". The SECOND crudest tool of all is "make a skill check; if you fail, you die".




Neither of which is the point, or even desirable.  But I don't want 'I bull through the traps without thought or care because they are completely incapable of doing permanent damage', either.



> 2. Did you not see the line in the article where the character has died already in the game?



Once.  For having a death wish and acting on it.  Yay.


@Incenjur, true I should have been more clear.  I was exaggerating a little and implying that it looks like godmode turns on for good once you hit level 21.  Not the level 30 epic destiny where you retire as a god.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

Dude, you're already a street level super hero at LEVEL 1.

That is what "Heroic" means.

Pig Farmer Level is no longer the starting point.

You are already kicking butts and taking names.

Later the butts just get bigger and the names longer and harder to pronounce.

You are never Joe Schmoe in 4E, because Joe Schmoe would wet himself when faced with the twenty goblins you can face at level 1.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> How does that solve anything?  I mean that seriously.  You're starting out super, apparently.  All sense of verisimilitude and believability is already gone.




Says someone who's never fought PL+4 enemies. Pah, you've obviously been mollycoddled too much. Grow some chest hair, mang!



> I don't really seen the point of playing goofy semantics with this, but if you insist, there isn't any perception of risk, either, on the part of anyone involved. Its being presented as don't think, don't worry, your character won't really be harmed, action, action, action!!! If I were an adrenaline junkie on a sugar high, that might appeal to me (though I suspect I'd be jumping out of planes, or something, and not sitting at a table).  And if it does appeal to others thats fine, but don't be too surprised if some people show a negative reaction.




The point, for those who apparently refuse to grasp it, is that if the default scenario as presented in the books (and here) fails to satisfy, there are plenty of DM tools available to change that scenario. This can even be done with minimal adjustment to the rules as they are written. Encounter framing, development of PC-NPC relationships, exploration of character motivations and desires, explication of dire consequences if things go wrong; all can make the most foolhardy character think twice before putting his hand/head in the hole.



> Neither of which is the point, or even desirable.  But I don't want 'I bull through the traps without thought or care because they are completely incapable of doing permanent damage', either.




1. So change it. Are you so incapable a DM as to be unable to conjure the appropriate atmosphere of foreboding without crude tools like "make a save; if you fail, you die"?

2. "Permanent damage"?



> Once.  For having a death wish and acting on it.  Yay.




And so it is possible to have "permanent damage" in the game, yes?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

> This can even be done with minimal adjustment to the rules as they are written.




Love that extensibility.  There is just nothing it won't fix.

It ought to be 4E's new motto.  

"New and Improved"*

*Some assembly required.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Love that extensibility.  There is just nothing it won't fix.
> 
> It ought to be 4E's new motto.
> 
> ...




No, no, no.

"New and Improved"*

*Some deconstruction required for those who want pretending to be elves to be risky.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 21, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Hear hear!
> 
> Charge first, ask questions later never.
> 
> Lanefan




Battleragers never stopped to ask questions, why should you?


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Some assembly required.




Welcome to Tabletop RPGs.


----------



## Zulgyan (Feb 21, 2008)

This is making the game look more stupid.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

Zulgyan said:
			
		

> This is making the game look more stupid.




Compared to old men in pointy hats and tiny men with fuzzy feet?    

It's a fantasy game.  It's there to be fun.

Some people just prefer Nintendo-Hard games, but this is the Wii generation.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The point, for those who apparently refuse to grasp it, is that if the default scenario as presented in the books (and here) fails to satisfy, there are plenty of DM tools available to change that scenario. This can even be done with minimal adjustment to the rules as they are written. Encounter framing, development of PC-NPC relationships, exploration of character motivations and desires, explication of dire consequences if things go wrong; all can make the most foolhardy character think twice before putting his hand/head in the hole.




Oh.  Was that the point? I thought you were making snide comments about people being unable to tell that they were playing a game, for no apparent reason.  But still.  'You can change the rules!' doesn't make me want to buy into a ruleset.  But none of the rest really addresses the point that if the character sticks his head in the hole, nothing particularly bad will happen to him.  He'll take some damage, and the damage will then be healed.  And the party moves on to the next action shot.  None of adds up to dire consequences if the player knows he will take a handful of d6s worth of damage, and it can't actually kill him, because it would have to do 150% of his hit points in damage.





> 1. So change it. Are you so incapable a DM as to be unable to conjure the appropriate atmosphere of foreboding without crude tools like "make a save; if you fail, you die"?




Sorry, why is this an issue?  I've mentioned not being a fan of save or dies three times now.    And it is quite hard to create an atmosphere of foreboding when the PCs know that nothing bad will happen to them, because mechanically, it can't.  I'd be worried facing a gunman.  I'd be pretty casual about facing a gunman armed only with blanks. 



> 2. "Permanent damage"?



  Yes.  Is meaningful damage better?  HP damage that isn't just tidied up with a per encounter power and negative effects that last beyond the end of the encounter.





> And so it is possible to have "permanent damage" in the game, yes?



Possible?  Yes.  But its also possible that someone will drive their car through my patio door and run me over while I sit at this computer.  Neither seems likely right now.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yeah, its turning out pretty much exactly how I imagined as well.  No risks.  No dread.  Lots of tactical illusionism.  Heroic feats attempted not because the situation demands you take the risk, but just because you can and because well they really aren't risks.  Even players not being able to make sound judgements because the game universe bears so little relationship to the real one.  The worst sort of cornball action movie as the standard of dramatic tension.  It's all there.  Nerfworld.  Everything bounces.  Everything is now the 'I can jump off the 60' cliff because it can't really hurt me' problem.




Actually in 3E the damage from a fall table reaches a terminal velocity that, w/some careful casting, won't kill a level 6 character.  The game has always been pretty nerfy w/weird jagged spikes sticking thru w/the death effects and such.

Personally, I play D&D to play the character types in the game or just to be a heroic kinda guy.  If I want a game filled w/lots of dread, constant fear for my life, I'll play Call of Cthulhu.  Heck, I'll play some Ravenloft.  Any game where you have reasonably cheap access to spells like Resurrection, nothing is too out there to try.  If you thought up something that could be devastatingly cool if you pull it off, save the party, but has a lot of personal risk, how could a hero do anything BUT attempt to end the fight quickly, save the damsel, etc in that fashion?

I'm 31, I've played D&D for 20 years and the idea of a less tactical swat team game in favor of a game that encourages you to try things that might be a bit wild, but fit the mold of heroic deeds (even before your bard stretches the truth), sounds great to me.  I bet it keeps people from falling asleep at the table after the 4th room in a row of taking 20, carefully examining everything b/c you play w/a dyed in the wool, me against them, "I will kill them all (unless my dice hate me)" DM like I did for several years


----------



## Campbell (Feb 21, 2008)

All he's basically saying is that one bad decision or poor dice roll won't lead to instant death. Rather, most of the time it will lead to interesting situations that increase the likelihood of death. I'm also hoping he is hinting that initiative won't be nearly as critical as it was in 3e. Are we really having a 'D&D has gone Care Bear' debate ?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I don't consider that a good thing.  I don't want to play 'superheroes in chainmail'.  Heroic-Paragon-Epic doesn't suggest Wolverine-Superman-God to me.
> 
> And your above post, while quoting Celebrim...
> I'm going to be polite and just say that there should be real risks to the *characters*.




Honestly, this whole encounter sounds perfectly "heroic" to me. It's straight out of Indiana Jones (pretty much literally), and I don't think you could argue that Indie has superpowers.

EDIT: That said, a lot of the "nerfiness" in the article is DM fiat. If my players were stupid enough to start reading evil spell scrolls they didn't understand, they sure as hell wouldn't get a helper-ghost-symbiant out of it. I don't need a save-or-die mechanic to say, "You just summoned Cthulhu without any protective wards. And he's grumpy."


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Yes.  Is meaningful damage better?  HP damage that isn't just tidied up with a per encounter power and negative effects that last beyond the end of the encounter.




D&D has never had a good system designed for permanent damage in the core game.  The chance of running an encounter and, by the rules, losing your sword hand....pretty much nil.  Your head, a good roll on a vorpal handles that   Lost limbs can be restored, death can be reversed, a bear trap over your forearm to the bone can be pried off by the strong types and your flesh mended by a quick prayer to a god.  I would just hope that the character doing crazy things is merely b/c THAT is his character.  Daredevil w/no regard for himself or others gives you a potential story arc of self-improvement, learning to care about what happens to your fellows, etc


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

Zulgyan said:
			
		

> This is making the game look more stupid.




Well, if there is one thing that they've been consistantly good at it is making the game look stupid in thier previews.

Imagine instead of focusing on how reckless he could be and get away with it, he instead focused on round by round account of the really cool mine cart encounter, taking care to show how the new mechanics of the game facillitated this sort of running series of challenges.  That's what we really want to know.  Can the game make _my_ game better?  You know, what if they made this an oppurtunity to make a real preview?  What if they actually focused on game events rather than the internal emotional state of the writer?    

Instead, what we get is someone ranting on a particular _play style_, which sort of sight unseen implies that if your play style of 25 years is radically different than the above, that you just aren't going to be supported.  And that the particular play style seems goofy, slightly juvenile, and seems to primarily support gamer archetype #3 only makes it worse.

Whoever thought 'encourages player recklessness' made a really great selling point?  It doesn't matter what sort of rash and foolish decisions I make, I'm likely to succeed anyway?  That's not a selling point to me.  This isn't the sort of challenges I thought anyone was clamoring to be made easier.  I thought there was a general agreement that resolving challenges ought to be easier.  Making overcoming challenges easier does not count as reduced system complexity.  We wanted I thought to reduce the mechanical headaches.  I want 'kinder and gentler' to mean the math is easier, not that the game was easier because all the bad things that might happen to your character have been carefully removed and all the sharp corners filed down and padded.  D&D was plenty cooshy as it was. 

It's so bad, I half suspect deliberate sabotage on the part of the writer.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Honestly, this whole encounter sounds perfectly "heroic" to me. It's straight out of Indiana Jones (pretty much literally), and I don't think you could argue that Indie has superpowers.




No, but its significant that in the Indie movie, they're spending this sequence running away.
They're running away from the 20 odd (or is it more like 6 in the other cart?) mooks, because they can't handle them, which Indie does quite often.  Its quite different from the apparent 4e expectation, where you charge said groups.



> EDIT: That said, a lot of the "nerfiness" in the article is DM fiat. If my players were stupid enough to start reading evil spell scrolls they didn't understand, they sure as hell wouldn't get a helper-ghost-symbiant out of it. I don't need a save-or-die mechanic to say, "You just summoned Cthulhu without any protective wards. And he's grumpy."




I'm not really convinced that any fiat is involved.  I think the helper abomination may well be intentional (though there may be some minor consequences later).


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oh.  Was that the point? I thought you were making snide comments about people being unable to tell that they were playing a game, for no apparent reason.  But still.  'You can change the rules!' doesn't make me want to buy into a ruleset.




Nobody said anything about changing the rules, hasty misinterpretations notwithstanding. Nothing in the list of things I produced has anything to do with the rules as they are written. They are entirely to do with the informal interaction between DM and players, you know, that pretending-to-be-elves stuff that is often called "roleplaying".



> But none of the rest really addresses the point that if the character sticks his head in the hole, nothing particularly bad will happen to him.




Nothing bad will happen to him... once.



> He'll take some damage, and the damage will then be healed.  And the party moves on to the next action shot.  None of adds up to dire consequences if the player knows he will take a handful of d6s worth of damage, and it can't actually kill him, because it would have to do 150% of his hit points in damage.




It is called arithmetic. One shot does 40%, the next does 50%, the next does 60%.... lo and behold, we have 150%. Arranging events so that the character is liable to take three shots in a row is an exercise left for the reader (hint: 3 rounds of combat may be necessary).



> Sorry, why is this an issue?  I've mentioned not being a fan of save or dies three times now.    And it is quite hard to create an atmosphere of foreboding when the PCs know that nothing bad will happen to them, because mechanically, it can't.




1. Oh, you mean like how the character in the article didn't die? I guess death is only a state of mind.

2. Nothing bad happening to them does not rule out nothing bad happening to other people. They survive everything the dungeon throws at them, but because they were too slow, the evil priest has succeeded in reading the scroll of ULTIMATE DQQM and epic crap hits the fan. They force the evil warlock to flee, but they were sucked in by his cunning plan and while they were distracted, his minions have turned their loved ones into brain-eating zombies. And so on. The THIRD crudest tool for producing a perception of risk is to focus on the characters alone, while ignoring their links to the world around them.



> I'd be worried facing a gunman.  I'd be pretty casual about facing a gunman armed only with blanks.




No, this should have been a generic food metaphor. Here, I'll add it in for you: you wanted tomato sauce, but instead you got peanut butter.



> Yes.  Is meaningful damage better?  HP damage that isn't just tidied up with a per encounter power and negative effects that last beyond the end of the encounter.




What, so damage that can kill you within the one encounter isn't meaningful now?



> Possible?  Yes.  But its also possible that someone will drive their car through my patio door and run me over while I sit at this computer.  Neither seems likely right now.




This is because your perception of risk is faulty.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> All sense of verisimilitude and believability is already gone.




It doesn't hurt my believability at all.

And I'm one of those guys who drove the "Rules Aren't Physics" thread to 10+ pages, in part, because of believability.

I really and honestly have no problem believing that heroic characters are head-and-shoulders BETTER than your common dirt farmer, and that even though heroic characters may survive rash actions, dirt farmers will not. I have no problem with there being two "classes" of beings in the world, the common and the heroic (...and perhaps the paragon and the epic?). I have no problem with hog farmers who die from falling off of horses and with near-demigods who don't die if they plummet at terminal velocity into a brick wall. 

In fact, I'd say this difference is part of what makes me love D&D, and gives me a real feeling of heroic fantasy. 

And people die in 4e. I've heard quite a bit about it. Heck, people drop like flies in 3e, I don't think 4e is going to be much different.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Whoever thought 'encourages player recklessness' made a really great selling point?




Whoever it was, it seems to be working for quite a few people in this thread!


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 21, 2008)

I just want to put in quickly that as a DM this makes me actually feel better about putting my players in more dangerous situations since if they do die, the chance it is a really bad, ridiculous death is less and so they won't be annoyed.

So in some regards this actually helps encourage a more aggressive and dangerous route for the DM.


----------



## Voss (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> <snip>




Wait, when did we move from a trap (sticking his head in a hole) to 6 rounds of combat?


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Wait, when did we move from a trap (sticking his head in a hole) to 6 rounds of combat?



 When you moved from "traps can't kill now" to "there is no meaningful risk in the game".


----------



## Zulgyan (Feb 21, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Compared to old men in pointy hats and tiny men with fuzzy feet?
> 
> It's a fantasy game.  It's there to be fun.
> 
> Some people just prefer Nintendo-Hard games, but this is the Wii generation.




Easy is not fun for me. YMMV


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 21, 2008)

Zulgyan said:
			
		

> This is making the game look more stupid.




I'm sorry, but nothing surpasses the original Fiend Folio for making the game look stupid.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

What's wrong with stupid anyway?


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Chris Youngs (though still credited as Chris Thomasson) wrote an article on how the math of 4e has affected his playing style:
> 
> http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20080220a



More silly 4e-good-3e-bad promotional fluff.  Yes, the removal of save-or-die effects is a good thing.  That has nothing to do with racing mine carts, which (as noted by Kraydak upthread) is an example of DM fiat, not game system design.  4th level characters aren't supposed to engage in exciting & trecherous chases before 4e, because they might break their necks?  Tell that to the Eberron adventure writers (just to pick an easy example).  Or any DM who has run a game with a cinematic flair.

I'm also disturbed by the implication that 4e will have no obviously subpar character choices ("If you've ever selected the Travel domain with your cleric...").  Really?  I find that hard to believe.  Game designers have a very poor track record in predicting this sort of thing once actual players get their hands on the rules.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> More silly 4e-good-3e-bad promotional fluff.  Yes, the removal of save-or-die effects is a good thing.  That has nothing to do with racing mine carts, which (as noted by Kraydak upthread) is an example of DM fiat, not game system design.  4th level characters aren't supposed to engage in exciting & trecherous chases before 4e, because they might break their necks?  Tell that to the Eberron adventure writers (just to pick an easy example).  Or any DM who has run a game with a cinematic flair.




I've come to the conclusion that the tone isn't really driven by marketing. I think the designers are a little overzealous about their new baby since you know they designed it. I've noted that most of the 4e development staff is a little more evenhanded in their analysis than the designers are.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> I'm also disturbed by the implication that 4e will have no obviously subpar character choices ("If you've ever selected the Travel domain with your cleric...").  Really?  I find that hard to believe.  Game designers have a very poor track record in predicting this sort of thing once actual players get their hands on the rules.




I'm sure that there will be some choice that are better than other choices, but the trick is this time it won't be by design. Some mechanical elements in 3e were deliberately designed to suck - the much vaunted system mastery. I'm glad that's no longer part of the agenda at Wizards - at least in the RPG department...


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm not disappointed either about the cinematic style.
Like _hong_ said isn't D&D an illusion?

I suspect Heroic-, and Paragon-tier will be high and fast-paced cinematic action, and Epic-Tier will be champion (or exalted), not semi-godly but way out crazy action.

Of course the sense verisimilitude is not entirely gone. But past 10th-level will be hard to maintain. So verisimilitude fan will obviously be somehow disappointed. But that's what happen when you crank things up a bit. If D&D was a set of meta-rule like most point-based system (GURPS, Hero System, Fuzion) you could tone it down to a more realistic style, but I suspect the DMG won't offer this type of tool. Either you adjust to the new tone, or play another edition of D&D or play other games out there. This is my feeling of what the new edition is shaping up to be.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm going to be polite and just say that there should be real risks to the *characters*.




The risks are there. 

Two examples:

Level 1 mini encounter

Our Warlord fell into a pit trap and was bitten by a swarm of rats. He bled out five pts of damage for several turns as he failed to stop the bleeding each turn. Meanwhile we are fending off a few goblins. My rogue took a javelin to the chest and was instantly bloodied. This low level fairly easy encounter almost resulted in a TPK.

Level 2 side encounter

Yesterday we went into a graveyard and were mobbed by about 8 zombie minions, 4 tougher zombies and a nasty elf. I went to swing on one of the tough zombies and did about 17 pts of dmg, it was barely hurt. Next turn I did another 16 pts of dmg on the toughie, still barely hurt. I realized this guy was too tough and decided to get away but my options were limited. I could try to climb a tree but risk falling and taking fall damage (I think 1d10) or use an ability to get close to my Dragonborn Paladin without drawing an AOO. I used the ability but it did not get far enough away and I got mobbed. I was attacked by the zombies, pinned against a mausoleum.  I went from 29 Hp to -6 in 3 turns due to attacks and recurring necrotic dmg. I was convinced I was dead. This tough zombie guys was a bad  mofos and could take a boatload of dmg. Our cleric got me back to positive and then my NPC goblin buddy made a longshot first aid check and allowed my to try and shake of the necrotic damage, it worked but I was very lucky. The cleric and warlock hooked me up big time, otherwise I would have been rolling a new character. 

I did recover and managed to get enough HP back to exact a grudge hit on the bad elf (she ignored me in the tavern and my giving her some flowers)


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Moderately paranoid? Players, in my experience, aren't moderately paranoid. They should be put in straight jackets and locked in padded cells.

Examples I've had to deal with:

1. DM (Me): You come to a 20'x20' room. There's a door at the other end.
[prerequsite blank stare at character sheets for 30 second]
DM: Come on, guys, what are you doing?
Player1: How high is the cieling and what sort of stone is the room made out of?
DM: Uh... it's sandstone. The cieling's 10' high. It's a sort of mottled brown.
Player1: How mottled?
DM: Ordinarily mottled.
Player1: I don't like the sound of that, guys, it's too normal.
[Rogue checks the walls, floor and cieling for traps; Mage casts Detect Magic; Paladin Detects Evil. Nothing is detected.]
Player2: I don't trust this. What does the door look like...
[10 minutes later]
Player 1: Ok, I guess I step into the room. I've got the rope tied around me and the fighter's holding the other end to pull me back just in case...

Or my other favourite

2. DM: A barmaid walks up to your table...
Player1: I Detect Magic on her.
Player2: I Detect Evil.
Player3: I Detect Lies.
Player4: I Sense Motive on anything she says.
DM: Uh... she just wants to know what you want to drink.
Player1: We order a round of ale, and I Detect Poison on it when it arrives.

Now, these were two separate groups and, as far as I am concerned, ANYTHING that can be done to discourage this type of boring gameplay should be applied. Before anyone asks, no the party had never been poisoned by any barmaid before and no, they'd never wandered into an empty room that was trapped.

Oh, yet another example. I once had a room where they had to cross a bridge over lava. pretty standard stuff. Would they use the bridge? Nooooo, that might be too easy or exciting or something. Generally something OTHER than boring. So they teleported 20ft. over the flow. That debacle stopped play for a half hour even after I told them that the bridge wouldn't collapse underneath them.

None of them wants to take the slightest ammount of risk. Now, I agree that nobody wants a guy in the party that plays a CN half-orc barbarian that does a stripsease on top of the altar of the Dark One. On the other hand, alot of players need to harden up and take a chance.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 21, 2008)

LOL, I know what you mean, it must be boring to DM with folks like this.

I stopped playing AD&D 2E because there was an Assassin character backstabbin the other PCs in their sleep, and the DM was giving the Assassin XP for it!!! [I guess it was the teenage factor]

When I found another group of players they were playing another RPG, so I switched and never came back to D&D, until now.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The risks are there.
> 
> Two examples:
> 
> ...




Hey Scott, one concern I have is that all the "perilous" examples people bring up are from combat encounters with a bunch of enemies. 

I think part of the issue is the move to per-encounter powers. In 3e, a lone trap that only did 10 damage still had an effect on the party, because it forced them to expend limited healing resources. But if healing is per-encounter 4e, nothing BUT a dead character has consequences outside the context of a larger encounter. No insta-death traps + "free" healing (outside of combat) = why not just stumble through and trigger them all?

I'm worried that my character will basically be invincible until I roll initiative. Can you give any examples where screwing up a standalone trap has proved to be a Very Bad Thing?


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 21, 2008)

Zulgyan said:
			
		

> Easy is not fun for me. YMMV



You have obviously never played a Nintendo Hard game.

There is a _huge_ difference between "easy" and "not Nintendo Hard". The two aren't even comparable. Difficulty is when the game presents a reasonable and interesting challenge that has a significant chance of failure if you do not approach it with skill or intelligence. Nintendo Hard is an exercise in playing the brainchild of sadistic videogame designers porting over game concepts inspired by quarter-eating arcade games and making them even more difficult through arbitrary and random mechanic changes.

To put it differently...

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is a Wii game. It is not Nintendo Hard, because it is fair. If you approach it intelligently, you will win most of the time, but it is widely accepted as being quite difficult because it does take a lot of effort, planning, creativity, and preparation in order to succeed.

Suoer Ghosts and Goblins is a Nintendo Hard game. You pretty much need to memorize the layout of every stage, avoid being hit more than once every five minutes or so, dodge countless enemies flying at you from every direction at once, make difficult jumps over bottomless instant-death pits without error, and go through the entire game twice in order to complete it.

I would much rather play an honestly difficult game than a Nintendo Hard game. 4E really is shaking off the same kind of elements that create a Nintendo Hard-style of game, and I think it will do so without making things "easy". I think this is an absolute improvement.


----------



## EvolutionKB (Feb 21, 2008)

Rouse, while I appreciate your comments, there is one thing that has me afraid...How could some level four adventurers kill a level 11 solo monster without DM intervention/story type encounters?


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> You have obviously never played a Nintendo Hard game.



See also Fake Difficulty. Some examples which D&D players may find familiar are:

Making things depend far too much on luck, often to the point of removing skill as a factor. 
Allowing the players to make very few mistakes and punishing them severely for making too many.
Failing to distinguish between valid map and instant-kill areas.
Making monsters or hazards look like beneficial items. 
Enemies that seem to be there only to frustrate the player.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

This Editorial makes me happy and want to play 4E. 



			
				ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Hey Scott, one concern I have is that all the "perilous" examples people bring up are from combat encounters with a bunch of enemies.
> 
> I think part of the issue is the move to per-encounter powers. In 3e, a lone trap that only did 10 damage still had an effect on the party, because it forced them to expend limited healing resources. But if healing is per-encounter 4e, nothing BUT a dead character has consequences outside the context of a larger encounter. No insta-death traps + "free" healing (outside of combat) = why not just stumble through and trigger them all?
> 
> I'm worried that my character will basically be invincible until I roll initiative. Can you give any examples where screwing up a standalone trap has proved to be a Very Bad Thing?



I can't speak for Scott, but as far as I understood, healing isn't unlimited. Apparantly, all healing is based on a Second Wind - like mechanic, and you have
- a limited number of times to trigger them per day (uses)
- a limited number of ways to trigger them at all, and how often you can use these trigger options. (triggers)

It seems these "triggers" exist: 
- Generic Second Wind: Once per day, you can do it on your own, provided you have an action to spend.
- Class powers (specifically Leader, but potentially "personalized" powers too)
- While dying, there is not only a chance of actually "becoming" dead, but also triggering your Second Wind. 
- Heal check

So, even if you figure out how to trigger your healing, it still costs one of your uses per day.

That's just a guess, but I think there have been enough details to make it an educated guess.. 



4E might actually be the "Torgisation" of D&D - it's easy to make over-the-top action stuff, but don't let that fool you - there are still things out there that can and will kill you.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

I have to agree with Voss And Celebrim.

Apparently the expected gamestyle in 4E is the one of a suicidal lemming. otherwise I can't explain why in the article it is considered metagaming when you don't take unnecessary risks. Imo its more metagaming when you charge at every opportunity because you know that this won't kill you thanks to care bear rules.

Yeah, it really looks like WotC think that this is the playstyle the (new) target audience wants. And maybe it does but I am not part of that target audience which means that I don't want characters which behave like the mentioned suicidal lemmings, sticking various body parts into every opening they can find while in a unfriendly, trap filled death maze just because they can and if something happens it won't hurt them much anyway.

Some people mentioned action movies in this thread and I agree that action movies are a good inspiration for D&D adventures, but please use intelligent action movies where the main character is not a cross between the Terminator and the teacher of Chuck Norris.

Take the Indiana Jones movies. That would be a in my eyes a very good inspiration for D&D. You have a smart hero who do not posses any superpowers yet still manages to be heroic by taking calculated risks when exploring dungeons or stopping BBEGs from aquiring artifacts. Another good inspiration would be Die Hard when you ignore the latest one. Here again you have a smart hero who does not always charge everything blindly and is still heroic (although he is unlike Indiana Jones nearly immune to injury)

Yet what 4E seems strive to do is not Indiana Jones style adventures but more something along the lines of Tripple X when the hero is replaced by a X-Men and the BBEG are the offspring of Dr. Doom from the Fantastic 4.
Intelligent solutions are possible but not really required as the hero can simply fight his way through legions of mooks which resembles more or less the fighting scenes in Hot Shots 2 just without the comedy in them.

Of course you can change the rules and compromise with your players not to follow the 4E action movie on speed gamestyle but then you could also stay with 3E and save a lot of money in the process.


----------



## delericho (Feb 21, 2008)

The encounter described (with the mine carts) did sound like fun. I am a little concerned, though, that an untrained Dungeoneering check at level 4 is enough for the sort of jump described. Although he never did tell us what the actual roll was.

Truth be told, save-or-die mechanics were generally poor anyway. Not just because they so often became "don't roll a 1", but also because a successful save usually meant "no effect". So, you high level Wizard either ended the encounter will his insta-kill spell... or had no effect whatsoever. However, it seems to me that the solution to that was to introduce some sort of magical analogue to hit points, allowing a range of damages somewhere between "you're dead" and "no effect".

Removing save-or-die doesn't necessarily mean reducing the lethality of the game, though - it just means reducing the randomness in the system. I get the distinct impression that they have _greatly_ reduced the lethality of the game in addition to all their other changes, and I further get the impression that the pendulum has swung far to far towards the 'nerf' side of the scale (IMO, of course).


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 21, 2008)

"Take the Indiana Jones movies. That would be a in my eyes a very good inspiration for D&D. You have a smart hero who do not posses any superpowers yet still manages to be heroic by taking calculated risks when exploring dungeons or stopping BBEGs from aquiring artifacts."

Thing is though with Indiana Jones, if he rolled a one while running any of the dungeon gambit in Raiders he would be dead. In 4e, there is a better chance to survive a trap as well as more variety in getting passed them, that scene would be a amazing thing to recreate using a combination of chase-mechanics and the trap-combat system.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Voss And Celebrim.
> 
> Apparently the expected gamestyle in 4E is the one of a suicidal lemming. otherwise I can't explain why in the article it is considered metagaming when you don't take unnecessary risks. Imo its more metagaming when you charge at every opportunity because you know that this won't kill you thanks to care bear rules.




You say this like metagaming is a negative thing.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> "damn the torpedoes ninjae, full speed ahead"




Never give up, never surrender!


…I could use a cup-holder and a couple of Advil…


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> "Take the Indiana Jones movies. That would be a in my eyes a very good inspiration for D&D. You have a smart hero who do not posses any superpowers yet still manages to be heroic by taking calculated risks when exploring dungeons or stopping BBEGs from aquiring artifacts."
> 
> Thing is though with Indiana Jones, if he rolled a one while running any of the dungeon gambit in Raiders he would be dead. In 4e, there is a better chance to survive a trap as well as more variety in getting passed them, that scene would be a amazing thing to recreate using a combination of chase-mechanics and the trap-combat system.



 Indy basically combines the skillset of a 15th level guy with the hit points of a 5th level guy. This is because he doesn't kill monsters, he just takes their stuff. D&D characters generally have to do double duty.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> thanks to care bear rules.




Dude, that reminds me of the Care Bear campaign I had back in 87 – insane!

Basically, this article, to me, just reinstates the balanced math of the new system.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I'm also disturbed by the implication that 4e will have no obviously subpar character choices ("If you've ever selected the Travel domain with your cleric...").




er - Travel domain is given as one of the powergamer choices 

Erase spell was given as a subpar character choice...

And why would you want clearly subpar character choices to be available in the game? Isn't it somewhat better if all PCs have a range of choices of equivalent value or interest?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> The encounter described (with the mine carts) did sound like fun. I am a little concerned, though, that an untrained Dungeoneering check at level 4 is enough for the sort of jump described. Although he never did tell us what the actual roll was.




It could have been a DC20 check and they rolled 18 or more on their d20 plus half their level...

It would make the article more interestingly useful if they had mentioned the DC needed though... I'd hope we would be seeing more crunchy details to discuss by this point before release.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I stopped playing AD&D 2E because there was an Assassin character backstabbin the other PCs in their sleep, and the DM was giving the Assassin XP for it!!! [I guess it was the teenage factor]



 Ouch, I feel for you there.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Feb 21, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is a Wii game. It is not Nintendo Hard, because it is fair. If you approach it intelligently, you will win most of the time, but it is widely accepted as being quite difficult because it does take a lot of effort, planning, creativity, and preparation in order to succeed.



Heh.  The tvtropes entry for Nintendo Hard actually cites the Fire Emblem games -- and Radiant Dawn in particular -- as being examples of Nintendo Hard.  I might agree with them on the series in general; I have a lot of memories of taking control of a battle, only to have enemy reinforcements bamf in out of nowhere and instagib one of my units who, prior to this unwelcome interruption, had been well out of harm's way.  I haven't tried Radiant Dawn, though.

The ideas are still the same though.  One could pretty easily point at the Tomb of Horrors, for example, as being Nintendo Hard, whereas something like the Red Hand of Doom is simply hard.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Yes! Bring on the action movie cinematic play style!



Yay! Bring on the system finally supporting the way we already play!


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Apparently the expected gamestyle in 4E is the one of a suicidal lemming. otherwise I can't explain why in the article it is considered metagaming when you don't take unnecessary risks. Imo its more metagaming when you charge at every opportunity because you know that this won't kill you thanks to care bear rules.



There's an entire spectrum of play styles between hyper-paranoia and suicidal lemming, and I'm sure that the expected playstyle in 4e in somewhere in the middle, albeit further away from hyper-paranoia than the expected playstyle in 3e.

In a way, I think the move towards more risk-taking in the game is a reaction to the slow and careful play emphasized by 3e and previous editions. Some gamers don't want to do that any more. There are also those who are sick and tired about being careful and logical at home and and work, day in and day out, and just want to take a break in an imaginary world where can take what they would consider to be unnecessary risks in the real world. Yes, it's a form of escapism. But then again, aren't most recreational activities?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Feb 21, 2008)

It's weird - I read the article and assumed it meant that characters would no longer have to be forsenic scientists probing every square inch of a dungeon in order to survive, and I thought that was a good thing.

I thought it read that it supported the idea of trying stuff over not trying stuff - hopefully making the game a little more exciting for all and avoiding the "well I'm not sure if I'll succeed and if I don't I'll just die" mentality.

I also thought it read that death would be more to do with bad choices in combat or whilst encountering traps, and less to do with dice rolls and inescapable consequences.

So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> None of them wants to take the slightest ammount of risk. Now, I agree that nobody wants a guy in the party that plays a CN half-orc barbarian that does a stripsease on top of the altar of the Dark One. On the other hand, alot of players need to harden up and take a chance.




QFT.

If 4e gets away from "I check every 5ft square for traps, then I search every 5ft square for goodies," I'm all for it.

Sadly, I can't say this is all players' faults either, as I've played with a couple of DMs that actually **encouraged** this game-dragging behavior.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> It's weird - I read the article and assumed it meant that characters would no longer have to be forsenic scientists probing every square inch of a dungeon in order to survive, and I thought that was a good thing.



To be fair, that's an equally inaccurate characterization of the expected 3e playstyle as the suicidal lemming comment. I'm sure most players didn't take 20 searching every 5-foot square they encountered during play.

What most players might have done is to take take as few risks as possible, and choose the safest (most logical, most tactical) option over the alternatives. If the 4e rules make risk-taking as viable as playing safe, then we might see more players taking more risks, and enjoying it.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 21, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.



From what I've read about 4e so far, 'super-badass' sounds rather likely, and 'can't die' very unlikely indeed. IMO, and so forth.


----------



## Elphilm (Feb 21, 2008)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> So I'm all in favour of the article, and what I thought it said, and I'm slightly confused by the way other posters have decided that what it was actually saying was that all characters are super-badass and can't die.



My thoughts exactly. It often happens that I find myself nodding my head while I read these preview articles, and when I come here to see what other people think about an article I go _what the..._

Part of the charm, I suppose.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hm. Are you suggesting that 4E will live as long as Diablo II?




WotC should be so lucky.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> WotC should be so lucky.



 YOU should be so lucky.

HAW HAW!


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Sadly, I can't say this is all players' faults either, as I've played with a couple of DMs that actually **encouraged** this game-dragging behavior.




-sighs- I know, it pains me.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't mind cinematic play at all.  In fact, my favorite game system, the Unisystem of Buffy and Angel and Army of Darkness , is quite cinematic and action packed and daring.  I've already modified my v3.5 game with houserules to make it more cinematic (although I never thought that the system lacked that quality in the first place).

I am a bit mystified to hear about v3.5 games where players check every square for traps and treasure.  That does sound dreadfully dull.  But surely this is a play style issue and not a system one.  I've never seen any of my players become SWAT scientists as described in this thread, and I certainly don't run games that way.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> -sighs- I know, it pains me.



Remember, it's not game-dragging, it's character-building.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> YOU should be so lucky.
> 
> HAW HAW!




Interestingly enough, yesterday I checked up on Diablo 2 after not having played the game in a few years.  It's still alive, although certainly not as popular as WoW and others.  But that game was hugely popular in its heyday, and I sure did enjoy the heck out of it.

Sigh.  I miss my werebear druid and his bear companion smackin' some demons around the battlefield.

We were unstoppable.

*wipes a tear away*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> "Take the Indiana Jones movies. That would be a in my eyes a very good inspiration for D&D. You have a smart hero who do not posses any superpowers yet still manages to be heroic by taking calculated risks when exploring dungeons or stopping BBEGs from aquiring artifacts."
> 
> Thing is though with Indiana Jones, if he rolled a one while running any of the dungeon gambit in Raiders he would be dead. In 4e, there is a better chance to survive a trap as well as more variety in getting passed them, that scene would be a amazing thing to recreate using a combination of chase-mechanics and the trap-combat system.



But Indiana Jones, in all the movies, never gets the equivalent of a rolled 1 that ends his life. Does this imply he is just "lucky", or that the (not actually existing, but let's pretend it does) rules contain enough wiggle room so that there is no single "1" that can lead to certain death?

The dangerous traps in Indiana Jones make us believe that they should be modelled as "save or die" traps in D&D, but the fact Indy never fails any of his saves and checks (and dying from it) could also indicate that they actually are not, and are better modelled by a different, more forgiving mechanic.

Off course, a movie character isn't really following any game rules, but if there were some, they would certainly be giving several options to avoid dying (at least if you're the hero, and we're not talking about some dark tragedy where everybody dies and never achieves his goals)

The question is what does the game aim to model, which story does it tell? Does it model situations in where you survive if you're lucky, and die if not? Or does it model situations in where you will probably survive, unless you make too many or too big errors? 

4E leans to the latter. That's exactly what I want. But people that have grown up with (or in?) Tome of Horrors and the previous D&D editions might have different expectations (and prefer them, too.)


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 21, 2008)

*I'll have to see the rules*

It's hard to pass judgement on this one.

I would like for the game to be a little more cinematic, in that doing cool stuff is rewarded.  But, I also want a game where the potential for PC death is everpresent.  

I have always wanted 3E characters to have way more skill points, for example, because those skill points would enable PCs to be better at things like riding mine carts (what is the skill required for that, anyway?)

But I definitely don't want the game to dictate that the poison on the unfound trap on the treasure chest can't kill a PC.  

So, we'll see.

Ken


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, yesterday I checked up on Diablo 2 after not having played the game in a few years.  It's still alive, although certainly not as popular as WoW and others.  But that game was hugely popular in its heyday, and I sure did enjoy the heck out of it.
> 
> Sigh.  I miss my werebear druid and his bear companion smackin' some demons around the battlefield.
> 
> ...



Diablo 2, Starcraft, World of Warcraft. Whatever Blizzard touches, it turns to gold. 
They must be stopped! 

...


Must they?


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

The articles headline might be about save or dies. But when you read the text you come to the conclusion that it is about "You can do what you want because it will never kill you".

Staying in a mine cart which drives towards a chasm is not taking risk, its pure desperation or when that don't apply (like in Chris post) pure stupidy. But in the 4E world of unreasonable action movie stunts this is not a risk at all. The characters can fly over the chasm with a untrained skill check.
There is a door in your way? Smash it without regard to the consequences as nothing the door can do will harm you. Why do we even need traps in the game when there is no risk in activating them?

Such a gameplay is suitable when you play characters wearing latex costumes with a big letter on their chest, but should not be the default playstyle in D&D.
And if you want to turn D&D into a superhero game don't be suprised that the people who want to play a (more or less) mediveal fantasy game leave.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I don't want to play 'superheroes in chainmail'.




I do.

Well, to be perfectly fair I want to play 'Superheroes in Full Plate' but I think the idea is the same.  That was what our last  campaign (3e) turned into well before it ended at level 27 and my character had ditched all armor because his Dex was so high (he had Bracers of Armor... but still...)

I'm the member of our group that loves the social based sessions; I'm the one that loves the story aspect and really got into the political intrigue portion of our last campaign.  But I'd rather be fighting a half-dozen badguys inside a tower and then learning the safest way out would be to scale down the outside while a dragon is blasting away than be a member of the group waiting for everyone 'to be sure' that the next five foot square of the hallway is safe.

Give me "Die Hard in Full Plate" over "CSI: Tomb of Horrors" anyday.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Diablo 2, Starcraft, World of Warcraft.



Hm. . . which one does not belong with the others. . .


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I don't mind cinematic play at all.  In fact, my favorite game system, the Unisystem of Buffy and Angel and Army of Darkness , is quite cinematic and action packed and daring.  I've already modified my v3.5 game with houserules to make it more cinematic (although I never thought that the system lacked that quality in the first place).



(quick aside) One of the best things I did for _my _ D&D game was importing Unisystem's Drama Points system---essentially unchanged. 

(I especially like the part where I pay you a couple of DP for permission to completely screw over your character)


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Give me "Die Hard in Full Plate" over "CSI: Tomb of Horrors" anyday.



Sigged. Sigged _hard_.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The articles headline might be about save or dies. But when you read the text you come to the conclusion that it is about "You can do what you want because it will never kill you".




You do? Clearly you have been reading an article almost but not quite entirely unlike the one I have been reading.



> Staying in a mine cart which drives towards a chasm is not taking risk, its pure desperation or when that don't apply (like in Chris post) pure stupidy. But in the 4E world of unreasonable action movie stunts this is not a risk at all.




To be precise, in the action movie world of the campaign being described where unreasonable stunts become reasonable, this is not a risk at all. Or possibly low risk so that the characters easily made it but still with a fair chance of being splatted on the wall, but let's not quibble.



> The characters can fly over the chasm with a untrained skill check.
> There is a door in your way? Smash it without regard to the consequences as nothing the door can do will harm you. Why do we even need traps in the game when there is no risk in activating them?




I succeeded in my skill check to detect the logic trap in your paragraph! But there was no risk involved, which made this my worst post ever.



> Such a gameplay is suitable when you play characters wearing latex costumes with a big letter on their chest, but should not be the default playstyle in D&D.




Indeed. The default playstyle in D&D should be characters wearing leather costumes with a big metal stud on their chest. You know, studded leather.



> And if you want to turn D&D into a superhero game don't be suprised that the people who want to play a (more or less) mediveal fantasy game leave.




Oh well.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And if you want to turn D&D into a superhero game don't be suprised that the people who want to play a (more or less) mediveal fantasy game leave.



You mean a medieval game, where death is nothing more than a speed bump?

Honestly, rather give me hard-to-kill characters that can take crazy risks and survive than more-easily-killed characters that take crazy risks, die, and get resurrected.

Doing things despite bad odds is better than a revolving door of death. And traps... were always "gotcha!" things. If they couldn't kill you, you just healed up using your wand of cure light wounds. And you have "search every tile"-rogues. Making traps more than "die-or-get-XP", i.e. exciting mini-encounters is adds more depth and opportunities to the game.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Heh. One sure-fire way to bring the fear of death back, regardless of how wahoo the rest of the system gets: ban resurrection.


----------



## cwhs01 (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The articles headline might be about save or dies. But when you read the text you come to the conclusion that it is about "You can do what you want because it will never kill you".




This is obviously what you concluded. But why? 

The article specifically states that pc's can die. they won't die from their first mistake or due to a single bad die roll. But pressing their luck may/will/should get them killed. This doesn't really imply that pc's are invincible. It means that a 4e pc can attempt some stunts that would kill or are just impossible for a 3e pc. It does not mean that there won't be consequences to being foolhardy. Just that you won't loose your character the first time you are unlucky or bold.

why is this bad?


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> why is this bad?



Playstyle conflict. Some people don't want that in their games.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> This is obviously what you concluded. But why?
> 
> The article specifically states that pc's can die. they won't die from their first mistake or due to a single bad die roll. But pressing their luck may/will/should get them killed. This doesn't really imply that pc's are invincible. It means that a 4e pc can attempt some stunts that would kill or are just impossible for a 3e pc. It does not mean that there won't be consequences to being foolhardy. Just that you won't loose your character the first time you are unlucky or bold.
> 
> why is this bad?




First, never believe everything a designer tells you. Normally 50% of it is true, at best 75%
Second, when someone talks great lengths about what crazy stunts he can pull of and how easy it is to survive them a small sentence that it is still dangerous will not help much.

There is nothing wrong with being bold. The problem is that 4E thinks it has to downgrade suicidal into bold making everything, no matter how stupid, surviveable.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Playstyle conflict. Some people don't want that in their games.



Oh God. I smell a poll.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> First, never believe everything a designer tells you. Normally 50% of it is true, at best 75%




105% of statistics are made up. Trust me, I'm a statistician.



> Second, when someone talks great lengths about what crazy stunts he can pull of and how easy it is to survive them a small sentence that it is still dangerous will not help much.




What on earth is this supposed to mean?


----------



## Blue (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 1. There can be no "real risk" to a character, because a character is a flight of fancy with no independent existence and nothing at stake. Perception of risk is everything, and that perception lies in the mind of the player, who is the one with the ability to make decisions and a stake in the outcomes for the character. Many tools are available to manipulate that perception of risk, and the crudest tool of all is "roll a save; if you fail, you die". The SECOND crudest tool of all is "make a skill check; if you fail, you die".




I feel you may be overly pedantic in dismissing the wish for "risk".  Yes, the whole game is an effort of imagination, but within the framework of the story there is a place for risk.  Saying that it is just a game is just playing with words - of course it's a game, but within the game we would like to encounter chances to fail, such that we get feeling of accomplishment and to make the rewards sweeter.  In a good movie or book, characters get into "risky" situation.  Yes, it's a form of entertainment and they will most likely survive and succeed, but not always.  I remember reading George R.R. Martin and loving how there was "real" risk for the characters



			
				hong said:
			
		

> 2. Did you not see the line in the article where the character has died already in the game?




I did.  and I also read how a group of fourth level characters took down an 11th level solo monster - one that's supposed to fight an entire party of paragon level players by itself.  If that's the threat that the DM is throwing them against, only one death is vastly low.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Blue said:
			
		

> I feel you may be overly pedantic in dismissing the wish for "risk".  Yes, the whole game is an effort of imagination, but within the framework of the story there is a place for risk.  Saying that it is just a game is just playing with words - of course it's a game, but within the game we would like to encounter chances to fail, such that we get feeling of accomplishment and to make the rewards sweeter.  In a good movie or book, characters get into "risky" situation.  Yes, it's a form of entertainment and they will most likely survive and succeed, but not always.  I remember reading George R.R. Martin and loving how there was "real" risk for the characters




The point being, there are ways to manipulate the perception of risk that go beyond just the raw mechanics.



> I did.  and I also read how a group of fourth level characters took down an 11th level solo monster - one that's supposed to fight an entire party of paragon level players by itself.  If that's the threat that the DM is throwing them against, only one death is vastly low.




Which could also be taken as evidence that the wahoo level of this particular game was higher than that assumed for the default 4E campaign.


----------



## JLXC (Feb 21, 2008)

Wow, just wow.    First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic, you just don't get heroic as a concept which is no surprise to me, but saddens me none the less.  My 3e games had plenty of bravado and crazy situations, and death was very possible, and when the players pulled it off they KNEW they pulled it off, the rules didn't save them, they beat the odds, it was actually dangerous and a challenge and that made it much sweeter.  I'm too disgusted to go on.  

The article in question makes me sad.  Really.  

"You can be brave because the rules support it!  Because you could never play a real daring hero before 4E!  Oh noes!  It wasn't even possible, because you always died if you tried!"

You believe this?


----------



## cwhs01 (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> First, never believe everything a designer tells you. Normally 50% of it is true, at best 75%




Im assuming you decided that the half-lie here is that pc's can die?

If you are second guessing and disregarding statements you don't like, then why are we even discussing it?

Its possibly we should discuss what was actually said (at least until we have the finished product in a few months), judging not by what we fear or hope 4e is.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.    First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic, you just don't get heroic as a concept which is no surprise to me, but saddens me none the less.  My 3e games had plenty of bravado and crazy situations, and death was very possible, and when the players pulled it off they KNEW they pulled it off, the rules didn't save them, they beat the odds, it was actually dangerous and a challenge and that made it much sweeter.  I'm too disgusted to go on.
> 
> The article in question makes me sad.  Really.
> 
> ...



 Wait, pretending to be elves is heroic now?


----------



## Wulfram (Feb 21, 2008)

Removing the roll one and die, and reducing the fragility of level one characters, is, by and large, good.  Though I do think that the occasional BBEG or special monster with save or die can be interesting, if handled correctly

Most of the rest appears bad.  Genuinely stupid mistakes should be able to kill adventurers, and heedless risk taking should carry a genuine chance of disaster.  

Indeed, one of the virtues of reducing the randomness in the game, by cutting save or die and boosting early game hitpoints, is that it should allow the DM to reward the sensibly cautious with a decent chance of coming out intact, while those who choose to be reckless face a real risk to match their potential glory.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Not to mention, swatting *30lb* Darkmantles like bugs with a shield, moving at a mere 30mph?!  Cool is good and all, but it kind of loses its value if its given out for free.




Yes, because when I throw a toddler at an oncoming car, the toddler definitely doesn't bounce.


----------



## JLXC (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Wait, pretending to be elves is heroic now?




Way to miss the point.  Only choosing to dare because you assume you will make it is not heroic, Elf, Robot, Monkey, makes no difference.  The very idea of heroism is lost on most of you it seems.  

heroic 

adjective 
1.  very imposing or impressive; surpassing the ordinary (especially in size or scale); "an epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic sculpture" [syn: epic]  
2.  relating to or characteristic of heroes of antiquity; "heroic legends"; "the heroic age"  
3.  having or displaying qualities appropriate for heroes; "the heroic attack on the beaches of Normandy"; "heroic explorers"  
4.  of behavior that is impressive and ambitious in scale or scope; "an expansive lifestyle"; "in the grand manner"; "collecting on a grand scale"; "heroic undertakings" [syn: expansive]  
5.  showing extreme courage; especially of actions courageously undertaken in desperation as a last resort; "made a last desperate attempt to reach the climber"; "the desperate gallantry of our naval task forces marked the turning point in the Pacific war"- G.C.Marshall; "they took heroic measures to save his life" [syn: desperate]  

The main attribute of a hero is having the courage to do things that may not result in good things for you.  If you don't fear the results by and large, you're not courageous, and therefore you're not a hero.  The end.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

I thought you said you were too disgusted to go on?



			
				JLXC said:
			
		

> Way to miss the point.  Only choosing to dare because you assume you will make it is not heroic, Elf, Robot, Monkey, makes no difference.  The very idea of heroism is lost on most of you it seems.




The very idea of character state of mind being separate to player state of mind is lost on you, it seems.



> heroic
> 
> adjective
> 1.  very imposing or impressive; surpassing the ordinary (especially in size or scale); "an epic voyage"; "of heroic proportions"; "heroic sculpture" [syn: epic]
> ...




... nope, nothing about pretending to be an elf there! Not even about pretending to be a heroic elf.



> The main attribute of a hero is having the courage to do things that may not result in good things for you.  If you don't fear the results by and large, you're not courageous, and therefore you're not a hero.  The end.




Of course I'm not a hero. It's the elf who is the hero. The end.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.    First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic




Woah, there. There's a big difference between brave and stupid, though at first glance it might not appear that way.    If the likelihood of succeeding in a 'brave' action is very low, you'd be stupid to do it, particularly when the consequences are severe. 3e tends to penalize you extravagently for fairly minor, yet cool, effects.

Lets take the mining cart example from the article. There are 2 ways a party could approach this. 1. They could ride the mining cart down, battling monsters as the cart veers back and fourth, then leap heroically across the chasm to the other side. Or 2. They could walk the whole way down, coming across monster encounters, then have someone climb across the chasm with a rope or maybe use a spell to teleport or fly to the other side.

In 3e, I'd take the 2nd option because taking the mining cart would be suicide. You're guarenteed not to make one of the required rolls (anyone got Pilot: Mining Cart? Anyone actually take Jump?) and die because of it. But I'd much rather play number 1 and have a reasonable chance (like, above 60%, 80% prefereable) of making it. In the end, both ways, you get over the pit. But with option number 1, you do it with style.   

Now, as for the 11th level solo monster. Ever since 1e, the idea for solo encounters has been to pit an NPC of significantly higher level than the PCs against the party in order for the fight to be even. In 1e, 6 levels higher was the standard. In 3e, it was 6-8 (I found 8 the best for a memorable BBEG fight).

11 (NPC CR) - 4 (avg. PC level) = 7, so  it seems that appropriate encounter levels haven't changed too much, unless I've missed something in the previews.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.    First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic, you just don't get heroic as a concept which is no surprise to me, but saddens me none the less.  My 3e games had plenty of bravado and crazy situations, and death was very possible, and when the players pulled it off they KNEW they pulled it off, the rules didn't save them, they beat the odds, it was actually dangerous and a challenge and that made it much sweeter.  I'm too disgusted to go on.
> 
> The article in question makes me sad.  Really.
> 
> ...



The example scenario is the "wild mine cart ride". If the risks of dying were increased in that scenario, would it have been as enjoyable? Maybe if nothing bad happened. But since the risks are higher, few players would actually engaged in the scenario, because what's the reward? Death or getting somewhere where you could also get by foot, and safer? Sure, the visual of the cart ride is fun, but losing one (or even multiple!) characters in it is bad. If the risk of death is too high, it's simply not worth is. And the risk is usually always too high if one bad die roll is all it takes to make a course of action deadly. 

Ever checked what kind of risks the players took, and what they didn't? How many players are willing to play a reckless personality if the risks are high, and there are noticeably "safer" course of actions? (Chris apparently is a player that takes these kind of risks, since he also described how he used to play his characters even in previous editions. 
I think the members of my game group are less... enthusiastic on taking risks that offer no rewards...)


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> The main attribute of a hero is having the courage to do things that may not result in good things for you.  If you don't fear the results by and large, you're not courageous, and therefore you're not a hero.  The end.



No, not the end.

If you read the article, you'll see that the author is primarily talking about drastically unfun attributes of previous editions such as save or die and level drains. Courage has _nothing _ to do with going off to play your PSP because your character rolled a 1 on a poison needle trap. 

Then he mentions a clever and fun use of the dungeoneering skill to jump a gap with a runaway mine cart---a roll which involved both risk (crashing and possibly dying) and reward (being ****ing badasses). Courageous and fun.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Lets take the mining cart example from the article. There are 2 ways a party could approach this. 1. They could ride the mining cart down, battling monsters as the cart veers back and fourth, then leap heroically across the chasm to the other side. Or 2. They could walk the whole way down, coming across monster encounters, then have someone climb across the chasm with a rope or maybe use a spell to teleport or fly to the other side.



Or 3. They could ride the mining cart down, battling monsters as the cart veers back and fourth, then leap out the cart in the last moment before it falls down the chasm. Thats what one character did and that would be what is heroic and still sensible. 







> Now, as for the 11th level solo monster. Ever since 1e, the idea for solo encounters has been to pit an NPC of significantly higher level than the PCs against the party in order for the fight to be even. In 1e, 6 levels higher was the standard. In 3e, it was 6-8 (I found 8 the best for a memorable BBEG fight).




Thats not how 4E is supposed to work.
In 4E you look at the level of the party and take monsters of the same level and have a good encounter. You are not supposed to take a 7 level higher solo monster to make up for the fact that it is solo. This fact is already figured into the "solo" tag. and the power is indicated by its level.


----------



## JLXC (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I thought you said you were too disgusted to go on?
> 
> The very idea of character state of mind being separate to player state of mind is lost on you, it seems.




Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done because I do see the uselessness in explaining heroism to cowards.  No wonder 4e is going to be the way it is if you're the average playtester.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Then he mentions a clever and fun use of the dungeoneering skill to jump a gap with a runaway mine cart---a roll which involved both risk (crashing and possibly dying)



The risk of dying didn't seem to be there, unless I'm reading it wrong.

"In previous editions, I never would have considered taking this risk. I would have been afraid that my fragile character, especially at 4th level, would never have survived the jump or 40-foot drop off the top of the raised tracks."

So what's different in 4E?  The implication is that he knew his character *could* survive the 40-foot drop.  Or that he knew his character wouldn't fall.  One or the other.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Or 3. They could ride the mining cart down, battling monsters as the cart veers back and fourth, then leap out the cart in the last moment before it falls down the chasm. Thats what one character did and that would be what is heroic and still sensible.



And wastes a whole bunch of time that could be spent on doing stuff that's more fun than stringing a rope across a chasm, or simply wave your hand to bend the laws of nature to get what you want by system fiat.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Thats not how 4E is supposed to work.
> In 4E you look at the level of the party and take monsters of the same level and have a good encounter. You are not supposed to take a 7 level higher solo monster to make up for the fact that it is solo. This fact is already figured into the "solo" tag. and the power is indicated by its level.



Got a reference you can refer me to? I'd dearly like to read it, because if it is true, I wonder how they solve the problem of hit points and save DCs just for starters.


----------



## Lord Zack (Feb 21, 2008)

Cowards? It's a fricking game!


----------



## el-remmen (Feb 21, 2008)

celebrim said:
			
		

> Heroic feats attempted not because the situation demands you take the risk, but just because you can and because well they really aren't risks.




I just wanted to weigh in here and say this was my exact thought when I read the article.   I can accept that this _may_ be what a lot of D&D players are looking for these days, but it certainly isn't what I'm looking for.

I want attempted crazy stunts to be born of the necessity of the situation combined with quick/clever thinking on the player's part not just because you can or because that is how it is done in the movies (I'm playing D&D, not Action Movie the RPG).  It is for this reason that I instituted "action dice" in my game.  Have something important to try to accomplish, spend an action die (+1d6 to your d20 roll) - this increases your chances of succeeding on your check for whatever it is you are trying to, _but_ you could still roll a '1' on that action die and not get much benefit from it at all.   This also adds the element of a gamble since I have players choose to roll an action die before the d20 roll is made, so even if you rolled good enough to succeed on your own, the die is still spent.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Lord Zack said:
			
		

> Cowards? It's a fricking game!



This is D&D.

Serious. Business.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow.    First off, if the majority of you feel that your character can only be "brave" and "do daring things" if most of the danger of death is gone, your characters and your play style is simply cowardly and anti-heroic, you just don't get heroic as a concept which is no surprise to me, but saddens me none the less.



I wouldn't frame the issue in such absolute terms. Most of the time in 3e, the PCs weren't in much danger of death, either. The chance of rolling a 1 - the 5% chance of death - wasn't _likely_, but it encouraged a cautious style of play that some gamers feel is at odds with how bold adventurers should behave. Opening the door, reading the scroll, taking the gem off the plinth, etc. were all approached with caution even if 19 times out of 20, the outcome was no different from the character simply Just Doing It. What the rules seem to me to be doing is to replace the very small chance of a very bad thing happening with a larger chance of a not-so-bad (but still bad) thing happening. On average, the same amount of bad will happen to the character, but the character gets to act more like a daring adventurer, and to keep acting like a daring adventurer because one bad roll isn't going to kill him.

This to me has nothing to do with heroism. There is nothing particularly heroic about either deciding to take 20 to search for traps on a door, or just opening it and walking through. There is nothing particularly heroic about either choosing to stay on a runaway mine cart, or choosing to drop off. I reserve the term heroic for more significant decisions on the part of the character: Risk his life to save the NPC, or run away? Give up a prized magic item to ransom a prisoner, or leave him to his fate? Agree to help a ruthless Duke expand his holdings in exchange for assistance against a more evil foe, or refuse his offer? Minor decisions of the sort previously mentioned have more to do with fun and flair than what I would consider to be heroism.



> "You can be brave because the rules support it!  Because you could never play a real daring hero before 4E!  Oh noes!  It wasn't even possible, because you always died if you tried!"
> 
> You believe this?



I believe that the 3e rules encouraged caution (even if they did not discourage _heroism_), and if the 4e rules encourage a bit more risk-taking in between acts of actual heroism, I'd be all for them.


----------



## StarFyre (Feb 21, 2008)

*design*

this design method IS more metagamey, as mentioned, because people will say "that can't possibly kill me so I'll charge in" where as it probably should be more of a risk ala older editions.

People jumping off towers, etc...the way we deal with that is regardless of damage, it does an instant critical hit to the legs and we have specific critical hit tables for stuff like that.

For most people, it would mean broken legs/shattered knees, etc.

The party can then have the fun of roleplaying dealing with a companion who they have to haul around...

(my players are used to it)

Sanjay


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 21, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> So what's different in 4E?  The implication is that he knew his character *could* survive the 40-foot drop.  Or that he knew his character wouldn't fall.  One or the other.



I think that either could be (partly and perhaps, anyhow) explained by the fact that "Action Points are core" - as extracted from the EN World 4e news page.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done because I do see the uselessness in explaining heroism to cowards.  No wonder 4e is going to be the way it is if you're the average playtester.



Dude, playing a game isn't heroism. If you want to be a hero, join the army.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Got a reference you can refer me to? I'd dearly like to read it, because if it is true, I wonder how they solve the problem of hit points and save DCs just for starters.




Maybe this evening after an extensive search (unless someone is faster than me)

In 4E you are expected to take 5 monsters (not completely clear, it might also be just 1 monster per PC) of the same level as the PCs and you have a "good encounter" for them.
Special tags the monsters have can change the number of monsters in the battle. Minion monsters count as 1/2, elite counts as 2 and solo probably as 4-5 (a whole party). 

HP and DCs are linked to level. Monster of level X have (roughly) Y HP and Z attack, no matter if that monster is a dragon, a undead or NPC. The only thing which changes these stats are the monsters role. Striker monsters have higher attack and lower HP, defender monsters have higher AC, etc.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> In 4E you are expected to take 5 monsters (not completely clear, it might also be just 1 monster per PC) of the same level as the PCs and you have a "good encounter" for them.
> Special tags the monsters have can change the number of monsters in the battle. Minion monsters count as 1/2, elite counts as 2 and solo probably as 4-5 (a whole party).
> 
> HP and DCs are linked to level. Monster of level X have (roughly) Y HP and Z attack, no matter if that monster is a dragon, a undead or NPC. The only thing which changes these stats are the monsters role. Striker monsters have higher attack and lower HP, defender monsters have higher AC, etc.




Ok, I'll leave off this until I see more. I can see the point of it, making monsters more equal would make tem more easily classified, but if a monster's role is the only thing that modifies their stats, then Solo monsters are going to be woefully underpowered with HP and DCs unless being Solo gives you a bonus.

Quite simply, a solo monster with HP, AC and DCs equal to a non-solo monster od the same level that's expected to face a party in groups is going to die before they get to show off all their cool moves, no matter how many actions they get a round. "Rogue wins inititive and sneak attacks = dead beholder" is not fun.


----------



## Xath (Feb 21, 2008)

Friendly Moderator Warning:  Keep it Civil. 

Let's try to stay on topic and leave the name-calling out of it please.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

StarFyre said:
			
		

> this design method IS more metagamey, as mentioned, because people will say "that can't possibly kill me so I'll charge in" where as it probably should be more of a risk ala older editions.



Maybe you're right, and it's still metagaming (after all, we're taking rules into account). 
But it's at least not less metagaming then saying: "I take 20 on my Search check to find all traps in this room, because if I accidently trigger it I could roll a 1 and die due to some bizarre save or die effect or just from a powerful con-draining posion". 
But it has on advantage: Metagaming in the "save or die" case meant either not doing things that sounded interesting or fun because there is a chance of unavoidable death, while metagaming in the "no single roll determines life and death" means that you are willing to try things that sound interesting or fun, but there is a risk that you fail...



> If you want to be a hero, join the army



I'd prefer (him or any other hero-in-the-making) doing something more constructive. Maybe becoming a human rights activist in China, or a construction worker in Iraq. 
But anyway, I think it's a bit unfair to post replies towards him, since he stated that he didn't want to post anything regarding the topic. 
(But on the other hand, us cowards need to fight dirty, so feel free to be unfair...  )


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 21, 2008)

Good article.  This is the way D&D should be played, IMO.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done...





Yes, you are.  *JLXC*, we have rules against insults around here.  Please do not post in this thread again.

I strongly urge other to not follow suit - keep things civil and respectful in here, folks.  Thank you.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe you're right, and it's still metagaming (after all, we're taking rules into account).
> But it's at least not less metagaming then saying: "I take 20 on my Search check to find all traps in this room, because if I accidently trigger it I could roll a 1 and die due to some bizarre save or die effect or just from a powerful con-draining posion".
> But it has on advantage: Metagaming in the "save or die" case meant either not doing things that sounded interesting or fun because there is a chance of unavoidable death, while metagaming in the "no single roll determines life and death" means that you are willing to try things that sound interesting or fun, but there is a risk that you fail...




Being careful because you live might be in danger when you are exploring old, trapped underground ruins (or worse) isn't really metagaming. its sensible.
Storming through because "the traps can't kill me" is.



			
				Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Good article.  This is the way D&D should be played, IMO.




Considering that "this" means: Doing stupid stuff only because it looks cool without there any risk for doing stupid stuff. I disagree.

To use my trusted movie examples, in 4E Indiana Jones would behave like the original Terminator.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Good article.  This is the way D&D should be played, IMO.



To be honest, that's how we've played D&D for some time now.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 21, 2008)

Throughout 3e's existence, there have been innumerable threads by DMs complaining about players being overconfident because the CR system meant they could walk over every "fair" encounter.  DMs that thought that the CR system was a cap on what you could through at the PCs.  That was, of course, a gross misreading of the CR system.  It is also *precisely* what it takes to cause "suicidal lemming" style action.  People will play like suicidal lemmings only if it won't get them killed.  It won't get them killed only if there is an agreement with the DM that all encounters will be relatively easy, and very *very* few will be actually resource draining (and those will come with enough warning that you can avoid them if the situation warrants).

If 4e is designed for suicidal lemming action, the CR misreading that plagued 3e is becomes official rules for 4e.  As for whether that is a good thing or not, I'll let you reflect on the tone of the CR based player entitlement threads...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Ok, I'll leave off this until I see more. I can see the point of it, making monsters more equal would make tem more easily classified, but if a monster's role is the only thing that modifies their stats, then Solo monsters are going to be woefully underpowered with HP and DCs unless being Solo gives you a bonus.
> 
> Quite simply, a solo monster with HP, AC and DCs equal to a non-solo monster od the same level that's expected to face a party in groups is going to die before they get to show off all their cool moves, no matter how many actions they get a round. "Rogue wins inititive and sneak attacks = dead beholder" is not fun.



That's in fact the case. 

There is level, which basically determines most of the monsters modifiers. 
And then there is the "Veteran Status" or whatever you call it (I hope they have some name for it. I tend to use "Weight Class", but monsters aren't mechs  ), ranging from Minion to Solo.

Things indicate that Minions will have less hit points and deal less damage, while Elites or Solos deal more damage, have more hit points, and usually also have more actions per round (often due to reactive abilities that activate in response to a special activity).

The Pit Fiend example presented online was an Elite monster (16th level or so) that had an ability allowing it to summon allies (of lower level, but they gained a bonus to attacks from him) and the ability to make two attacks as a standard attack, and also a fiery aura.


I don't know what this tells us about the 11th level Solo monster against the lower level PCs. They must have been either very lucky (both in rolls and circumstances), or the reasonable level differences are _a lot_ more generous then the CR / PL differences in 3rd edition. Or, off course, the game system is broken from start and doesn't actually work as advertised.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Being careful because you live might be in danger when you are exploring old, trapped underground ruins (or worse) isn't really metagaming. its sensible.
> Storming through because "the traps can't kill me" is.



Assuming, of course, that the characters are warned that the underground ruins are trapped in the first place.

In 4e, the first trap that doesn't kill you _is_ the warning.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Now, these were two separate groups and, as far as I am concerned, ANYTHING that can be done to discourage this type of boring gameplay should be applied. Before anyone asks, no the party had never been poisoned by any barmaid before and no, they'd never wandered into an empty room that was trapped.



Heh, not in YOUR game.  The problem is that Paranoia in a Dungeon style play has become a genre assumption for some players.



			
				ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'm worried that my character will basically be invincible until I roll initiative. Can you give any examples where screwing up a standalone trap has proved to be a Very Bad Thing?



I thought the idea was to avoid standalone traps, because they suck for exactly the reasons you listed in your post.  If they kill you outright, its the most obnoxious of all the save-or-die effects available in the game.  If they don't kill you outright, then you can trigger them, take damage, heal, and move on having done nothing more interesting than expending a cure spell (and using up time that could have gone to something more interesting).

The solution being to put traps in as components in larger encounters, so that the trap can contribute to the overall risk.



			
				StarFyre said:
			
		

> this design method IS more metagamey, as mentioned, because people will say "that can't possibly kill me so I'll charge in" where as it probably should be more of a risk ala older editions.



Technically, it is equally metagamey to refuse to take actions at which your character has an extremely high chance of success out of fear of a 1 in 20 chance that you will fail and die.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Considering that "this" means: Doing stupid stuff only because it looks cool without there any risk for doing stupid stuff. I disagree.



It really depends on what's the in-game payoff for doing stupid stuff. If there are no significant effects, positive or negative, I say let the players do the stupid stuff if that's what they enjoy.

Now, if you're a DM who doesn't like it when players do stupid stuff, do recognize that there are other DMs who do.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I am a bit mystified to hear about v3.5 games where players check every square for traps and treasure.  That does sound dreadfully dull.  But surely this is a play style issue and not a system one.  I've never seen any of my players become SWAT scientists as described in this thread, and I certainly don't rune games that way.




It is a play style issue.

Unfortunately, it's a play style issue that's encouraged by the 3.x (and earlier) system's save-or-die effects, single-shot death traps and inability to heal more than a number of times per day equal to your cure x potion + cure x spells.

Just like the 15-minute adventuring day is a play style issue that's also encouraged by the system.


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> inability to heal more than a number of times per day equal to your cure x potion + cure x spells.




Healing in 4E will also not be unlimited.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I don't know what this tells us about the 11th level Solo monster against the lower level PCs. They must have been either very lucky (both in rolls and circumstances), or the reasonable level differences are _a lot_ more generous then the CR / PL differences in 3rd edition. Or, off course, the game system is broken from start and doesn't actually work as advertised.



In a different thread, one of the designers describes the character classes in use in his gaming group.  You can see from it that he's got about eight players.  I don't know if that's the case here, but its another possible factor.


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I'd prefer (him or any other hero-in-the-making) doing something more constructive. Maybe becoming a human rights activist in China, or a construction worker in Iraq.
> But anyway, I think it's a bit unfair to post replies towards him, since he stated that he didn't want to post anything regarding the topic.
> (But on the other hand, us cowards need to fight dirty, so feel free to be unfair...  )




True on all counts; my apologies. As a friend of mine in the USMC is fond of saying 'If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.' (note: not in the millitary myself, don't want to give that impression)


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done because I do see the uselessness in explaining heroism to cowards.  No wonder 4e is going to be the way it is if you're the average playtester.




LOL! That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on this forum. Sitting in your basement and rolling dice does not a hero make, no matter what edition of D&D you play.

I think the thread is getting a bit off track here. From my perspective, 3e had the same risks (or lack thereof) as 4e, but they are in the system differently.

Sure, you had Save or Die in 3e, but to offset it you had easy availability of Raise Dead and Resurrection. So if the players took a risk and died, what happened? Their PC is out of the game until they can find a high level cleric, and then they are rezzed. So in the long run, is there any risk?

Not really. Just the risk that they have to go play Nintendo for a couple hours while the rest of their friends keep playing without them. IMO, that's not risk. Thats just boring. And to add insult to injury, when you do get rezzed you might have to level down your character. Most players would rather just roll up a new character. So is there risk? No, just bad game mechanics that discourage players from doing anything other than probing every 5 ft of dungeon with their 10' pole.

In 4e, since there is no save or die, there is also no need for easy resurrection any longer. So now, you have characters that seem tougher, but that doesn't mean there is no risk. Its the same risk in the long run, just now you have cut out the whole problem with players going off to play Nintendo because their character "died" while they wait to be rezzed. The risk is no longer front loaded into a single die roll. In other words, the 4e designers have cut out the BS and the bad mechanics.

I consider that an improvement.


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 21, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> My solution to dungeons of doom was always to just destroy them without bothering to enter.
> 
> Just a much wiser solution for the character to come up with than "okay, I enter the place that will most likely kill me."




As I learned in the old Dragon Can you be an Adventurer quiz (sorry don't remember the exact title any longer) the easiest way to find trap doors is to burn the place to the ground.  Therefore I agree with you wholeheartedly.  As to the main point of this thread, I've played in a reckless manner many times before, of course the characters who did this usually had a wisdom in the 5-7 range so I chalk it up to good roleplaying.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Healing in 4E will also not be unlimited.




Of course not.  However, you're not having to rely on as limited a set of resources.  This is especially important when the resources are put into control of each of the characters (rather than in the hands of one or two characters..see "cleric."     )  

Even something as simple as adding in a single Second Wind effect and some extra hit points has made a great change in the way my players handle a SWSE game and the way they handled a D&D game.  They're more interested in getting to the core of the pirate base on the moon of Tatooine, and pulling off cool moves and heroic actions while doing it, than checking to see what trap might be hiding around the next corner.


----------



## delericho (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Healing in 4E will also not be unlimited.




If it's not, then they haven't gotten rid of the "15 minute adventuring day" problem - they've just extended it a bit. As soon as characters are out of their reserves of healing for the day (or have used up most of their per-day powers), they'll be retreating to rest, just as in 3e.

And we've already seen an example of this - in one of her "Confessions..." articles, Shelly bugs her DM over whether she has regained her "dailies" yet.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Throughout 3e's existence, there have been innumerable threads by DMs complaining about players being overconfident because the CR system meant they could walk over every "fair" encounter.  DMs that thought that the CR system was a cap on what you could through at the PCs.  That was, of course, a gross misreading of the CR system.  It is also *precisely* what it takes to cause "suicidal lemming" style action.  People will play like suicidal lemmings only if it won't get them killed.  It won't get them killed only if there is an agreement with the DM that all encounters will be relatively easy, and very *very* few will be actually resource draining (and those will come with enough warning that you can avoid them if the situation warrants).
> 
> If 4e is designed for suicidal lemming action, the CR misreading that plagued 3e is becomes official rules for 4e.  As for whether that is a good thing or not, I'll let you reflect on the tone of the CR based player entitlement threads...



This reminds me of a thing I noticed in regards to "adversial" use of the CR system. 
I remember that several modules my group played through contained custom-made monsters and NPCs whose CR just didn't make sense - they were noteably stronger (rarely weaker, but one tends to forget cakewalks monsters) then the CR indicated, and some NPCs were designed abusing the system.

For example, there was one adventure with Gargoyle like creatures. The monsters were pretty similar, except that they dealt more damage, had more hit points and a lower CR. This might just have been plain incompetence (never attribute to malice what could equally well be attributed to incompetence, right?), and since it was an earlier module, it probably was.
And then there was the adventure with the "Mogel Barbaren" (Cheater Barbarians), which were Barbarian1/Warrior1 with a CR of 1. Why? Because NPC level CR was level -1, so the Warrior level (by RAW) didn't count. Off course, these NPCs were intentionally designed to give them this single edge. 

In the first case I will give the benefit of doubt, but in the second (and some others) I think the CR abuse/wrongness was intentional? But why do this? 

I think the reason was an underlying problem with the CR system - the CR system is both used to determine the difficulty and "appropriateness" of an encounter, and to calculate gp and XP rewards. Both are useful tools. But the module designers in question probably didn't want to hand out too much XP and rewards, but still make challenging encounters. So they "cheated", and this one example of the failures of the underlying CR system.

I think both the 3.x CR system and the 4E equivalent of it are good ideas. Many other games suffer from the fact that you can only eyeball the "challenge" of any encounter, which makes it to likely to create unintentional cakewalks or TPKs. But combining this with the "advancement" reward also has pitfalls. Players might decide that since the DM is supposed to use "fair" encounters, that there are no risks for them. Module writers and DMs might decide to "cheat" in calculating their challenges to not give out more rewards then they want. 

The solution against "module cheating" is to decoupling reward and challenge. In many cases, it's okay to have them coupled, but sometimes, it's not so.

The solution against metagaming players is to give them encounters that are actually too tough, BUT they still have a chance to escape. (And that's something save or die mechanics and the massive damage high level NPCs/Monsters - and their speeds relative to the PCs - makes difficult). And if players know that XP are not strongly linked with the #monsters they fight, they might stop seeing everything as a combat encounter they have to beat, too. 

The only thing neither of this changes is that playing combat encounters can be more fun then the non-combat activities of the game, simply because the mechanics are more engaging in combat then elsewhere. (Hope that improves, but don't mind that much if it does not...)


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's in fact the case, etc.




Ah, good. That makes sense. As someone said, variable number of players means those challenge ratings are going to have to remain flexible. 8 players in a party is definitely a reason to up the difficulty level, I mean ouch (and a tough squeese into a mining cart).

Only thing I worry about is that now, some of my players are going to cry havoc if they ever encounter 2 solo monsters at once for perfectly logical story reasons. Ah, well, no use dreaming up problems.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The Pit Fiend example presented online was an Elite monster (16th level or so) that had an ability allowing it to summon allies (of lower level, but they gained a bonus to attacks from him) and the ability to make two attacks as a standard attack, and also a fiery aura.




Link

Pit Fiend Level 26 Elite Soldier (Leader)

NOTE: That is a 10 level difference.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 21, 2008)

EvolutionKB said:
			
		

> Rouse, while I appreciate your comments, there is one thing that has me afraid...How could some level four adventurers kill a level 11 solo monster without DM intervention/story type encounters?




Can't say as I wasn't there, maybe they used their daily.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Ah, good. That makes sense. As someone said, variable number of players means those challenge ratings are going to have to remain flexible. 8 players in a party is definitely a reason to up the difficulty level, I mean ouch (and a tough squeese into a mining cart).
> 
> Only thing I worry about is that now, some of my players are going to cry havoc if they ever encounter 2 solo monsters at once for perfectly logical story reasons. Ah, well, no use dreaming up problems.



Stop being reasonable. Dream up all problems you want, it's the internet!



> If it's not, then they haven't gotten rid of the "15 minute adventuring day" problem - they've just extended it a bit. As soon as characters are out of their reserves of healing for the day (or have used up most of their per-day powers), they'll be retreating to rest, just as in 3e.



Well, how often do you expect to need your "Second Wind" in 15 minutes? There is a point where going to rest is okay, but it shouldn't be after 15 minutes (or even a single hour), but it doesn't have to be 8 hours or 7 days, either...

The designers didn't want to run from "15 minute adventuring day" to "Do you remember this morning, when we're were still level 1?" - "Yeah, and now we're level 15! Awesome!" 

Finding the middle ground is the key. Whether they succeeded remains to be seen, but considering the description, it certainly appears as if they at least handled a few more than 1 or 2 encounters per day...


----------



## Jayouzts (Feb 21, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Moderately paranoid? Players, in my experience, aren't moderately paranoid. They should be put in straight jackets and locked in padded cells.
> 
> Examples I've had to deal with:
> 
> <Examples of annoyingly paranoid play snipped>




I agree with you that this style of play is annoying and boring.  However, I think it is a flaw of the players and not of the system.   If - as has been argued - 4E retains a real risk of PC death then players like this will still be risk-averse to the extreme.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Feb 21, 2008)

LOL... this is just reminding me of the character from an old X-files episode:

"Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage. "

Seriously, though... I think the element of emotional investment in characters has become more of the norm since 1E (as well as the investment of time in making a new character when one dies), so people are of course more loath to take "heroic" actions which the choices are "Yeah! I jumped across the 10' pit!" and "Aah! I'm dissolving in green slime!" If the heroic action isn't especially meaningful, players are more likely to take the safe route than risk instant death. 

However, that doesn't mean there are no consequences of failed actions in 4E. Becoming bloodied, poisoned, catching on fire... all of these add to the excitement of risk taking without the end result being the player starts asking to borrow books in the middle of a fight so he can start working on his next character.

Once a risk taker has gotten the snot beat out of him though, he's back in the same boat as earlier editions, but at least there's more ingame reason than "you instantly die on a roll of 1."

Look at it this way: from a simulationist perspective, it makes perfect sense for a BBEG to place nasty traps on the front door to his lair. From a narrative perspective, it makes for a poor story if the trap outright kills the heroes at the front door, and not at a more climactic point. That doesn't mean the trap should have no effect, and IMHO, makes it more interesting if it results in some handicapp the players now have to deal with as they push on deeper.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 21, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Pig Farmer Level is no longer the starting point.




Have you seen the stats for the Pig Farmer mini?  He will totally kick your 1st level pc's butt.


----------



## delericho (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, how often do you expect to need your "Second Wind" in 15 minutes?




I expect people to use it as often as necessary to return to full health, limited only by what the rules will allow. Once they've gone through their reserves for the day, I expect them to retreat and rest.

The corollary to that is that characters will throw all their 'dailies' at the first one or two encounters of the day, because they know they'll recharge them at the same time. Initially, they will find that 'balanced' encounters are a pushover, but DM's will adapt by upping the difficulty of those first two encounters to compensate...

and everyone will wonder just why 4e plays exactly the same way as 3e.



> There is a point where going to rest is okay, but it shouldn't be after 15 minutes (or even a single hour), but it doesn't have to be 8 hours or 7 days, either...




Unlike a lot of anti-4e folks, I am in favour of per-encounter balancing of the game. But mixing per-encounter and per-day abilities is a bad idea.


----------



## EATherrian (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> To be honest, that's how we've played D&D for some time now.




A good cinematic romp is always fun.  I also enjoy more gritty adventures, I'm hoping that both can be done with the new edition.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> /snip
> 
> "You can be brave because the rules support it!  Because you could never play a real daring hero before 4E!  Oh noes!  It wasn't even possible, because you always died if you tried!"
> 
> You believe this?




Well, in my last 3e campaign, I killed a PC every three sessions for over 80 sessions.  Half of those were to failed saving throws.  I stuck to RAW as hard as I could, barring my own incompetence in interpreting rules.  

I dunno about anyone else, but, that's just too friggin' lethal.  That's not heroic at all.  You couldn't be heroic in 3e if you stuck to core, because the game was just too lethal.  I wouldn't blame anyone whatsoever for taking the absolute most safest choices each and every time.

On the choices on the mine ride - Sure, they could take the mine ride, but, assuming there would be skill checks along the way, failing any of them results in a dead PC.  Why would you even consider it?  Never mind the chasm at the end, you don't know about that.  

Heck, if you go back into the general forums you'll see a multipage thread about pulling levers.  A large number of the posters there said that they would NEVER pull a lever in a dungeon because it would be too dangerous.  I don't want to play that way, and, y'know, I'm pretty happy that the default rules are not going to assume that people play that way.


----------



## delericho (Feb 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On the choices on the mine ride - Sure, they could take the mine ride, but, assuming there would be skill checks along the way, failing any of them results in a dead PC.  Why would you even consider it?  Never mind the chasm at the end, you don't know about that.




You know, I've been thinking about it, and I've concluded that that "untrained Dungeoneering roll" for jumping the chasm was just for show. The DC was 0, either explicitly or in reality.

Why?

Because if the PCs failed that roll it was basically a campaign ender - TPK. Would any DM really do such a thing? And, conversely, can someone fairly be described as a bad DM for _failing_ to do such a thing?



> Heck, if you go back into the general forums you'll see a multipage thread about pulling levers.  A large number of the posters there said that they would NEVER pull a lever in a dungeon because it would be too dangerous.  I don't want to play that way, and, y'know, I'm pretty happy that the default rules are not going to assume that people play that way.




Yeah, I remember such threads. Personally, I'm of the view that one should check for traps, and take-20 when doing so (and scan it with Detect Magic too, just to be sure). If, however, those searches reveal nothing untoward, then the level should be safe to pull. Of course, miss any of the sensible steps, and you're just asking to have the floor drop out from under you and drop you in lava.

There's a middle ground between "operate with extreme paranoia" and "be as reckless as you want - no one mistake will ever kill you". Unfortunately, it doesn't look like 4e has found it.


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 21, 2008)

> Let me start by saying this: Racing through a mine in a mine cart Temple of Doom-style should be mandatory for all D&D adventurers, at least once in their careers. Complete with jumps, hairpin corners taken on two wheels, monster attacks and collapsing tracks, it was possibly the most fun sequence of encounters I've ever had in a D&D game. In previous editions, I never would have considered taking this risk. I would have been afraid that my fragile character, especially at 4th level, would never have survived the jump or 40-foot drop off the top of the raised tracks. Instead, "the only thing missing," my character Deimos gleefully shouted to Mat Smith's character Garrot, "is fire! We need some explosions!"
> 
> Just to be perfectly clear, here: the player proposing this incredible venture in the first place (yours truly) is playing a character with Wisdom 8, to another player (Mr. Smith) playing a character with Intelligence 8. If that's not a match made for the Darwin awards, I don't know what is.
> 
> ...




So ... to quibble, int 8 plus wis 8 doesn't _quite_ seem to be darwin awards territory, but that's just IMO.

I have a little problem with the description of the choice to jump out as being _wrong_.  Seems to have been a valid choice based on the information available, and certainly not _wrong_ in terms of "did the character have fun with the decision".  The text is self-contradictory in this regard: Was the untrained check really "pulled out of their [expletive deleted]", in which isn't the decision to not attempt the jump seems rather correct?  (If the check was unfailable, or had no real consequence on failure, then as the player who decided not to take the jump I'd be a bit annoyed.)

My biggest problem with the example is that it doesn't really support the conclusion.  That is, that "4E allows for more risk taking".  I agree with other poster's that the car ride could have been run perfectly well using 3.5E rules.

Also the "physics of darkmantles" is partly by DM fiat.  But, in my approximation using the 3.5 rules, a 30mph collision is about a  30' fall, so 3d6 would be the expected damage, so a "splat" effect seems about right.

To step up out of the particulars of the argument, what I'm seeing is a failure in the form of the argument that is being made.  The conclusion may be true, but the reasoning that gets us there doesn't actually support the conclusion.

Thx!


----------



## Ipissimus (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Stop being reasonable. Dream up all problems you want, it's the internet!




I have a theory about that. I think that all the unreasonableness on the internet is due to the 'balance' of reason/unreason shifting in such a way that I get all the reasonableness. Now all I have to do is figure out how to sell an unquantifiable resource and I'm set for life.    



			
				Jayouzts said:
			
		

> I agree with you that this style of play is annoying and boring. However, I think it is a flaw of the players and not of the system. If - as has been argued - 4E retains a real risk of PC death then players like this will still be risk-averse to the extreme.




Certainly, my only hope is that if they have a better chance at success and the penalties not as severe (no save or die effects are going to go a long way here), they'll be more inclined to take a few more risks. I'm already loathe to outright kill a PC on the roll of a single dice, it's my heartfelt belief that PC death should only occur if the player is silly or if the odds are really stacked against them and they can't retreat or if they bite off more than they can chew; anything less seems cheap. But if they have a real chance and still muff it, it was a good try, better luck next time. I think my PCs and I can live with that.

This isn't to say it shouldn't be nail-bitingly close in places. If you're fighting a BBEG, all bets should be off.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2008)

> There's a middle ground between "operate with extreme paranoia" and "be as reckless as you want - no one mistake will ever kill you". Unfortunately, it doesn't look like 4e has found it.




I dunno.  Looks pretty good to me.  We know that 4e can be lethal - PC's do die in the playtests.  But, it also means that I don't have to play my PC as a member of a special forces team every time I go underground.  

As I said, I found 3e extremely lethal by RAW.  I can agree that death should still be on the table, but, let's knock down the lethality a bit.  Dropping the crits down to just max damage is a good start.  Removing save or die goes a long way towards mitigating arbitrary random deaths.  

But, it appears that the game will still punish blatant stupidity.  Not always, but, quite possibly in the long run.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

a) Paranoid players are generally the result of bad DMing, not only or merely the result of bad systems.  There is a very broad range of options between paranoidly taking 20 twice on every 5' sq., and brashly charging through every problem.  Both in my opinion represent very low skill play on the part of the player, in as much as you can design an expert system on a computer that could play your character for you using either of those strategies.  And low skill level means I as the DM would have to alot of handholding to keep the PC's alive.  And that always sucks.  Smart players can judge when to be paranoid and when to be brash, and skilled DMs can signal from the setting to observent players using thier heads what is the appropriate action.  The smart player jumped out of the back of the cart because he recognized an unnecessary risk, and decided not to take it.  His common sense told him that the odds of a mine cart successfully leaping a gap in a chasm were very very small.  What he didn't realize was that the scenario was literally on rails.  He was 'supposed' to leap the chasm in the minecart.  Well, its not his fault that he's not a mine reader and that the setting implied unnecessary risk that wasn't in fact there.

What the article tells me is that the part of the game that involves tactical skill, or what we use to call 'dungeoneering' skill before that became something on your character sheet, is increasely irrelevant.  This article confirms my suspicions that 4E involves a high level of 'tactical illusionism'.  Now, obviously the game is an illusion.  It's tedious to have to point that out, but well there are people here who make a point of being tedious.  All games are illusions, but not all games are tactically illusions.  Take the game of chance.  It's an illusion of a battle between two bronze age armies.  Those armies don't actually exist or actually fight.  But, the challenge provided by the game is real.  It is well recognized that skill greatly outweighs luck in determining the outcome of chess.  It is well recognized that chess rewards skillful play.  Some games however do not reward skillful play, and hense can feature 'tactical illusionism'.  That is, they have the appearance of rewarding or punishing choices, but in fact some element of them renders your choices largely mute.  Games like Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, History of the World, and some varities of dominoes feature alot of tactical illusionism.  The actual maximum skill level is very low, and the games aren't actually nearly as tactically deep and rich as they appear.  Fourth edition D&D seems headed that way.

b) There is also a vast gap between 'save or die' and 'I can brashly charge through any danger with reasonable confidence in my chance of success'.  I have long been a critic of save or die mechanics, especially active ones (like a monster with a save or die atttack) that can't be easily avoided.  You can search enworld and read the threads if you like.  But that doesn't mean that the only alternative to them is the one 4E provides.  It's not an either or choice.   But as long as we are on the subject of 'save or die', the chance of failure if you roll a one does not invalidate a game from being tactically rich.  In another thread I mentioned that I played bloodbowl.   In bloodbowl, practically every roll, if you throw a 1 there is a good chance you will be harshly penalized - and you are only using a d6!  So with that much luck involved how is it that anyone is better than anyone else in bloodbowl?  The expectation from the way some of you talk is that no one is in fact more skilled in bloodbowl than anyone else and that bloodbowl is an uninteresting game which is mostly about luck, but in objective fact it isn't.  Some people consistantly win.   They do so by very carefully managing thier risks, so that they always weigh the risk with potential reward and only take those chances where the reward is worth the risk.  If every action in bloodbowl had a very high chance of success, it would be true that no one was any better than anyone else because a person randomly choosing what actions to take would have no significant disadvantage on someone who was carefully weighing risks.

There is a point to 'failure on a 1', and while there are always problems with 'fortune' generating mechanics potentially overriding skill, clever design can mitigate these problems.  For example, Bloodbowl mitigates the problem of luck by having rerolls as a limited resource.  It wouldn't be as good of a game if success was gauranteed.

I really have to wonder though: is the big new innovation just that a roll of a 1 on a saving throw isn't an automatic failure?  Is that all this article means by 'fixing the math'?

c) Wheedling the noobs until they are so frustrated that they make an ad hominem attack is not cool, and while it may glide under the board rules it's not good community behavior.  If you have to act like a jerk to someone, pick on an oldbie that has thicker skin.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 21, 2008)

I think D&D could use a good dose of "interesting conditions between fully healthy and fully dead".  I also think D&D traps could use a good dose of "interesing things the PC can do between failing to find the trap and suffering its effects."  So ... with those things in mind, I will go read the article and see what all the fuss is about...


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> The risks are there.
> 
> Two examples:
> 
> ...




I've been waiting several months to read something like this. 

The vast bulk of playtest reports have all been things like "And then my first level wizard used his Armageddon Burst to KILL THE DEMON PRINCE, and even COOLER, it's an AT WILL power, so we don't have to STOP or ANYTHING! Yeah, Fred got hurt, but the PALADIN killed a nearby ORC and thus HEALED Fred just by being SO AWESOME! 3e SUCKS!"

I don't want to read that.

I want to read about struggles. About risks. About the sole survivor, down to his last hit point, rolling that one crucial 20 which takes out the baddy. (Or, sometimes, doesn't...) I want to feel the game will be *hard*. Will be *challenging*. That we'll need every single one of those per-encounter and at-will powers just to get through a gang of orc bandits, and we'd better know our synergies and our tactics well in order to do it. I don't want to rely on dumb luck, I want to know that my decisions and choices -- during character build and in-play -- are what will make the difference 90% of the time, with luck being the icing on the cake, as it were.

(And I'd also like it made clear which things have mechanical support and which are pure DM fiat. Don't tell us about mine cars unless there's a cool "chase scene" mechanic in 4e that wasn't in 3e -- I can make up a "Random Mine Car Event Table" myself...

Roll Event
1    Smooth sailing -- lucky you!
2-3 Hairpin turn -- DC 10 Balance check to stay in the car.
4-5 Attacked by flying gargoyle; he gets one attack as you zip by, you may counter.
6-7 Sudden plunge. DC 15 Reflex save or take 3d6 from sudden shock
8    Roll twice, combine.

Do this 2d6 times to model the entire ride. 
)


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> 1. There can be no "real risk" to a character, because a character is a flight of fancy with no independent existence and nothing at stake. Perception of risk is everything, and that perception lies in the mind of the player, who is the one with the ability to make decisions and a stake in the outcomes for the character.




That's some clever semantics, there, Mr. Hong. But I don't think drawing a line between "reality" and the player's perception of "reality" is particularly helpful. (It does win arguments, though.  )

*Of course* the characters aren't "real," and the risk isn't a "real" risk. But let's leave aside D&D, characters, role-playing, and imagination for a minute, and just put this in the context of GAMES.

Games have risks, or "stakes." When you play poker for money, the stakes are real. When you play for bragging rights, the stakes are still real! When I play a role-playing game, I want the *stakes* to be real. I want to feel that it was really luck and my choices that helped my character survive, not a Las Vegas-style game where the odds are always with the (players') house.

There is no risk, or "boldness," or "fearlessness" in a game without a significant possibility of failure. By definition, they cannot possibly be "risky." There's no stakes there whatsoever.

And there are other mechanics to encourage boldness besides making risk the mere perception of risk.

(I must admit, though, this is the first thing I've read about 4E in months. I've been out of the loop and lovin' it.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> The vast bulk of playtest reports have all been things like "And then my first level wizard used his Armageddon Burst to KILL THE DEMON PRINCE, and even COOLER, it's an AT WILL power, so we don't have to STOP or ANYTHING! Yeah, Fred got hurt, but the PALADIN killed a nearby ORC and thus HEALED Fred just by being SO AWESOME! 3e SUCKS!"




Lizard, that's pretty overblown.



> I want to feel the game will be *hard*. Will be *challenging*. That we'll need every single one of those per-encounter and at-will powers just to get through a gang of orc bandits, and we'd better know our synergies and our tactics well in order to do it. I don't want to rely on dumb luck, I want to know that my decisions and choices -- during character build and in-play -- are what will make the difference 90% of the time, with luck being the icing on the cake, as it were.




I have no problem with a gang of orc bandits (what, minions?) being hewn through like butter, but the great orc king (maybe elite? maybe solo?) being a bigger challenge.

The challenge should be scalable, and I think 4e is embracing this idea so that there's less "succeed by the skin or your teeth or die" scenarios, which are kissing counsins to the "save or die" scenario.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I've been waiting several months to read something like this.
> 
> *The vast bulk of playtest reports* have all been things like "And then my first level wizard used his Armageddon Burst to KILL THE DEMON PRINCE, and even COOLER, it's an AT WILL power, so we don't have to STOP or ANYTHING! Yeah, Fred got hurt, but the PALADIN killed a nearby ORC and thus HEALED Fred just by being SO AWESOME! 3e SUCKS!"
> 
> I don't want to read that.




Oh my.  See, this is why I come here...where else will you get this sort of funny?  Where, I ask?

Lizard, you're my hero.  Also, if I'm lucky, Cadfan has you on ignore...


----------



## robertliguori (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> a) Paranoid players are generally the result of bad DMing, not only or merely the result of bad systems.  There is a very broad range of options between paranoidly taking 20 twice on every 5' sq., and brashly charging through every problem.  Both in my opinion represent very low skill play on the part of the player, in as much as you can design an expert system on a computer that could play your character for you using either of those strategies.  And low skill level means I as the DM would have to alot of handholding to keep the PC's alive.  And that always sucks.  Smart players can judge when to be paranoid and when to be brash, and skilled DMs can signal from the setting to observent players using thier heads what is the appropriate action.  The smart player jumped out of the back of the cart because he recognized an unnecessary risk, and decided not to take it.  His common sense told him that the odds of a mine cart successfully leaping a gap in a chasm were very very small.  What he didn't realize was that the scenario was literally on rails.  He was 'supposed' to leap the chasm in the minecart.  Well, its not his fault that he's not a mine reader and that the setting implied unnecessary risk that wasn't in fact there.
> 
> What the article tells me is that the part of the game that involves tactical skill, or what we use to call 'dungeoneering' skill before that became something on your character sheet, is increasely irrelevant.  This article confirms my suspicions that 4E involves a high level of 'tactical illusionism'.  Now, obviously the game is an illusion.  It's tedious to have to point that out, but well there are people here who make a point of being tedious.  All games are illusions, but not all games are tactically illusions.  Take the game of chance.  It's an illusion of a battle between two bronze age armies.  Those armies don't actually exist or actually fight.  But, the challenge provided by the game is real.  It is well recognized that skill greatly outweighs luck in determining the outcome of chess.  It is well recognized that chess rewards skillful play.  Some games however do not reward skillful play, and hense can feature 'tactical illusionism'.  That is, they have the appearance of rewarding or punishing choices, but in fact some element of them renders your choices largely mute.  Games like Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, History of the World, and some varities of dominoes feature alot of tactical illusionism.  The actual maximum skill level is very low, and the games aren't actually nearly as tactically deep and rich as they appear.  Fourth edition D&D seems headed that way.




This, to me, presents a clear example of why consistent, reality-describing rules are important.  The essence of play is making meaningful choices, and in order to make meaningful choices, you need to understand the world around you.  Making the choice to engage in a wild mine cart ride when you are engaging in an action-movie-simulating universe is a different choice than in a more realistic universe, and by not communicating to the players what to expect, you deny them the ability to choose.  This isn't to say that the players can't choose to play CSI: Abandoned Goblin Mine in an action movie universe and take a -5 uncool caution penalty to all actions, nor that they can't choose to do the cart-ride in a more realistic universe, knowing that there exists great chance for sudden and fatal misfortune; it's that the players should have a good idea of the consequences for both approaches before they're asked to pick one.

Now, we may be making a mountain out of a molehill; it may be that there is a skill called Dungeoneering which can be used untrained, mentions the ability to control mine-carts, and can let you make an extremely risky jump on a high roll.  But what this sounded like to me is that the GM decided that "This would be awesome.", fiddled the physics of the universe to make it possible (and successful), and thereby denied the ability of the dragonborn's player to make a meaningful choice, because he was operating under false assumptions as to how the universe worked.

That's bad.  (I had another paragraph here, but brevity is the soul of wit.)


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ...I think 4e is embracing this idea so that there's less "succeed by the skin or your teeth or die" scenarios, which are kissing counsins to the "save or die" scenario.




I don't disagree about them being kissing cousins to 'save or die'.  'Save or die' can take alot of forms beside the obvious and literal one.   

However, one of our first previews of 4E discussed the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day.  In the article they talked about and suggested that the 3E design philosophy had assumed 4 encounters per day each using 25% of your resources, which meant in practice (they said) that all but the 4th encounter was "boring".  They said that this had encouraged DMs to adopt an adventure design paradigm where instead of offering 3 "boring" encounters followed by one interesting one, they offered just one huge encounter that required all of the players resources first thing.  This was the offered justification for going to a primarily 'per encounter' based system.  

I offered alot of criticism of that description when they made it, and I don't want to dredge up old arguments.  I'm merely pointing out that based on WotC's own discussions of 4E, Lizard has a quite reasonable expectation that the game will work in the way he described.

That it doesn't doesn't surprise me, but there you go.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Also, if I'm lucky, Cadfan has you on ignore...



Sigh.

Actually, no, Lizard is not on ignore.  The test for whether I put someone on ignore is whether, no matter how civil they are in terms of using naughty words, they are being a... well, see, can't say it here.  Lizard is not one

That being said, I appreciate the choice to excerpt rather than quote in full.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> That's bad.




Yes.


----------



## jtrowell (Feb 21, 2008)

On the topic of a 4th level group beating a 11th level solo monster, note that with the 1/2 level progression, the base number is just a +3 difference (+2 for level 4 versus +5 for level 11, as I supposed it will be reounded down)

Of course, if you add paragon powers or items to the monster, it will give it another advantage, but a groupe of 4th level could manage to make it, especially it the group has got 5 or 6 PCs versus the lone solo monster.

I would still give the monster the advantage, but with the new math (and lower damage output from what we've seen), I'd would not suppose that it would win every time versus a well prepared (and lucky) PC group.

Moreover, maybe the PCs were higher level when they defeated the solo monster ? (eitheir because they had naturally gained one or two level since, or because they had been advanced in order to test paragon play)


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 21, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:
			
		

> Heh.  The tvtropes entry for Nintendo Hard actually cites the Fire Emblem games -- and Radiant Dawn in particular -- as being examples of Nintendo Hard.  I might agree with them on the series in general; I have a lot of memories of taking control of a battle, only to have enemy reinforcements bamf in out of nowhere and instagib one of my units who, prior to this unwelcome interruption, had been well out of harm's way.  I haven't tried Radiant Dawn, though.



Well, I think the TV Tropes entry regarding Fire Emblem is more a result of modern players unfamiliar with true Nintendo Hard rather than a proper statement of that series' difficulty. The very fact that Radiant Dawn has a proper mid-battle save feature so you don't need to replay a chapter from the beginning every time you lose a character removes it from being Nintendo Hard in of itself. The game took me over 100 hours of play time, but I completed most of the missions on my first try.

Compare that to Super Ghost and Goblins, where it takes me hours of dying and retrying in order to pull off the perfect execution needed to reach the end of the _first level_, and dying that much in the second level means I need to play through the first level all over again (in a game where you need to complete the whole game twice in one sitting).



> The ideas are still the same though.  One could pretty easily point at the Tomb of Horrors, for example, as being Nintendo Hard, whereas something like the Red Hand of Doom is simply hard.



I have not played either, but I am perfectly willing to agree with the concept.

Navigating a labyrinth in which every chest either trapped, a mimic, or both, all the enemies have instant death attacks, you need to cross chasms full of lava in anti-magic zones (and no one in the party has any relevant skills), and the DM is counting every last turn so that he can insta-kill you when the dungeon collapses after two in-game hours is Nintendo Hard.

Fighting a running battle through an ancient ruin, fending off waves of attackers and getting caught in traps and ambushes as you go, giving you little time to rest, is just hard.

I think the second sounds more like fun to me.

Anyways, I don't understand why people are condemning 4E so much over this article. Before, the writer always wanted to play a reckless character who gets himself and the party into trouble, but had to limit that tendency because simple recklessness or a single mistake can be fatal in older editions. Now, it is possible to survive recklessness through luck and skill, and a single mistake may hurt, but it won't be fatal. This route may not be easy, but it is possible. This is not a case of a player charging in recklessly because he knows he won't die, it is a case of a player roleplaying a brave fool of a character, and not having to hold back because of guaranteed death.

This article is not trying to say that heroes are guaranteed to live, he is saying that there are no longer situations that are a guaranteed death. There is a huge difference between the two ideas. I would hate the first, but the second is a _vast_ improvement over previous editions.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Feb 21, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'm worried that my character will basically be invincible until I roll initiative. Can you give any examples where screwing up a standalone trap has proved to be a Very Bad Thing?




I can't provide any personal examples but I am sure they are there. Rodney's Trap Fun  blog post worked out fine for them because the trap pinned the monster but it easily could have gone the other way. Traps are a great element of D&D and I am sure there will be many nasty ones in the game.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> That's some clever semantics, there, Mr. Hong. (etc)



Hong is arguing that because risk is a question of perception, there are about a million other ways to create a perception of risk (or to give a character a stake in the outcome, which is perhaps a better way of putting things) besides killing a PC or two with a door.

Frankly, in my opinion, I find that sort of risk to be the clumsiest possible way to run a game.  Its like in horror movies where, rather than actually create tension or drama or fear, they just have some bad guy disembowel a pretty girl in high definition.  It gives the viewers the gut punch a horror movie is supposed to create, but its a trite gut punch.

There are better ways to give a player a stake in the outcome of a hazard besides insisting that an individual hazard carry an X in 20 chance of character death.  

Unfortunately, most of those don't work for random traps.  If a random trap has an X% chance of killing you, its an awfully lame way to die.  Why is it lame?  Because you're getting killed by something in which you had almost no stake.  If a random trap does NOT have an X% chance of killing you, chances are your cleric will patch you up, and you'll move on, ensuring that the you have as much stake in the trap as you have in your cleric's 4th Cure Serious Wounds of the day- that is, none.

Which is of course why WOTC is pushing so heavily to integrate traps and skill hazards into larger scenes involving multiple traps, multiple skill hazards, and combat.  That way the individual trap isn't a "roll above a 6 or die" challenge, its part of a larger scenario.  The scenario _as a whole_ gives you a risk of character death just as much as any D&D fight does.  This also has the effect of giving characters a stake in the trap almost automatically- instead of the trap being a challenge in which they "roll above a 6 or die, or maybe waste a cure spell," the trap affects their ability to do something cool that they wanted to accomplish, like leap over a pit to attack a wizard.  The players now have a stake in the trap, almost for free.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> However, one of our first previews of 4E discussed the problem of the 15 minute adventuring day. In the article they talked about and suggested that the 3E design philosophy had assumed 4 encounters per day each using 25% of your resources, which meant in practice (they said) that all but the 4th encounter was "boring". They said that this had encouraged DMs to adopt an adventure design paradigm where instead of offering 3 "boring" encounters followed by one interesting one, they offered just one huge encounter that required all of the players resources first thing. This was the offered justification for going to a primarily 'per encounter' based system.




I think they've done several things to attack the problem. It consists of, but is not exclusive to:


More HP padding at first level, less at high level (which keeps 1st level players alive while keeping high-level characters from resting too easily)
A continuum of monsters from easy 'minions' to challenging 'solo' monsters (which allows DMs to mix and match resources in an encounter)
A focus on making the encounter itself fun, with mobility and regenerating abilities (so that the PC's aren't worried about being left without their big guns)
Encounter design that goes for multiple monsters (allowing DMs more variety and style in the type of critters the PCs face).
Eradicating 'binary' abilities (immunities, stats so high no one can touch them, etc.)

None of those things necessarily remove the challenge from the game, but they allow for results of an encounter beyond "save" or "die." Just because they don't often die doesn't mean tht the encounter isn't challenging in one way or another, though. It's not a very robust pattern of thought that can't accomodate ideas for consequences beyond "succeed" or "fail."


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 21, 2008)

I agree with Cadfan, Kamikaze Midget, hong and others (I suppose that means I'm also agreeing with WotC, too).

I like that heroic characters have more survivability and hope that it scales nicely through all levels.  One of my gripes with 3.x was that once the players got to a certain level, encounters would often result in being a cake-walk or being too-deadly.  There didn't seem to be a lot of middle-ground.

I also agree that it's easy enough to put "the deadly" back in the game, but if you don't like that option...don't play.


----------



## Mirtek (Feb 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I'm also disturbed by the implication that 4e will have no obviously subpar character choices ("If you've ever selected the Travel domain with your cleric...").



What exactly is wrong with the travel domain? It's domain power is really good (for a melee cleric), much better than many other domains and the spell list has some very nice spells normally unavaible


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think they've done several things to attack the problem. It consists of, but is not exclusive to:
> 
> 
> More HP padding at first level, less at high level (which keeps 1st level players alive while keeping high-level characters from resting too easily)






Which I approve of.  In fact, this is the one area of the new design that I'm certain is going to effect the way I play.



> [*]A continuum of monsters from easy 'minions' to challenging 'solo' monsters (which allows DMs to mix and match resources in an encounter)




Nothing new here really.  We've always had this, it was just never explicitly defined.  The only innovation is making it easier on new DMs because now things 'on the shelf' are labeled.  I don't oppose the labeling, its probably a good idea, but it doesn't let me do anything I couldn't do before.



> [*]A focus on making the encounter itself fun, with mobility and regenerating abilities (so that the PC's aren't worried about being left without their big guns)




Nothing new here either.  I approve of the 4E designers new focus on skillful adventure design, and may even learn something from it.  But skillful encounter design can be done with 3E or earlier ones.



> [*]Encounter design that goes for multiple monsters (allowing DMs more variety and style in the type of critters the PCs face).




Again, nothing new here either.  



> [*]Eradicating 'binary' abilities (immunities, stats so high no one can touch them, etc.)




And again, I approve, although alot of DMs were house ruling this into 3E.  It's really not in itself a justification for any of the bigger changes of 4E.

None of these things are really addressing Lizards expectation though, nor do they provide for any new results to an encounter that we didn't have before.  We've always had rather precise means of tracking results in between 'succeed' and 'fail'.  It's one of the great strengths of D&D.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 21, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> We were all looking into a pit in a dungeon after having fought through a bunch of orcs over several encounters. Everyone was hurt, and my character had nearly died once. We weren't sure how deep it was or what was down there. Everyone else debated for a bit whether to go on or turn around and go back, and it was decided that the only sensible thing to do was to turn around.




Actually, the problem here is that you had no way of determining what was down the hole without committing yourself to encountering it. Nothing about Save or Die effects as near as I can tell.


----------



## Kraydak (Feb 21, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> I can't provide any personal examples but I am sure they are there. Rodney's Trap Fun  blog post worked out fine for them because the trap pinned the monster but it easily could have gone the other way. Traps are a great element of D&D and I am sure there will be many nasty ones in the game.




I find it vaguely amusing, and kind of sad, that the request was for a dangerous *stand-alone* trap and the example given was a trap+monster...  And the way the trap triggering worked was, in fact, danger-free except for the monster.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> (quick aside) One of the best things I did for _my _ D&D game was importing Unisystem's Drama Points system---essentially unchanged.
> 
> (I especially like the part where I pay you a couple of DP for permission to completely screw over your character)




Not surprisingly, I did this as well, calling them Action Points so my d20-loving friends wouldn't think they were too alien but basically using them the same way (including the payout to players for screwing them over).

I knew there was a reason I liked you.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> None of these things are really addressing Lizards expectation though, nor do they provide for any new results to an encounter that we didn't have before




Well, the part of Lizard's post I specifically called out was this:



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> I want to feel the game will be *hard*. Will be *challenging*. That we'll need every single one of those per-encounter and at-will powers just to get through a gang of orc bandits, and we'd better know our synergies and our tactics well in order to do it. I don't want to rely on dumb luck, I want to know that my decisions and choices -- during character build and in-play -- are what will make the difference 90% of the time, with luck being the icing on the cake, as it were.




I'm saying that it seems like 4e design will be less extreme (you won't have to test yourself to the limit against every gang of orc bandits, allowing for more encounters per day), and that encounters you win based on character strength (you will have to use your powers to win in most encounters, because it's fun to do that). This means that corageous play (using your powers in a situation where you might not absolutely need to, taking a risk that you might get wounded, etc.) is encouraged without having the "you die" consequence. Instead,  you take some damage, use some resources, have a more difficult encounter later, etc.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> IMO, the shift away from paranoid dungeon survival towards reckless insanity is one of the best things D&D has encouraged.



I agree. I've been playing rpgs 25 years and I've never once seen a game suffer from players being too reckless. Bad things can happen to the PCs, sure, but at least they're interesting. Many times however I've seen the fun get sucked out of games from too much caution. It leads to a much slower paced game than I prefer.

I've encountered a few people who think the 'check everything for traps' approach is how the game should be played. Thankfully they are a tiny minority.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I knew there was a reason I liked you.



Building bridges one post at a time.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Courage has _nothing _ to do with going off to play your PSP because your character rolled a 1 on a poison needle trap.


----------



## Cutter XXIII (Feb 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There are better ways to give a player a stake in the outcome of a hazard besides insisting that an individual hazard carry an X in 20 chance of character death.



I completely agree.

My current fave is the _Savage Worlds_ way of doing it. The system itself can be highly random (exploding dice and whatnot), and actually allows (in extreme cases) for a Legendary Hero to get killed by a goblin mook with a dagger. To me, that's a real risk. Every time your character enters a dangerous situation, there's a chance he's going to get 86ed. (I personally like that, but I understand not everyone does...look at my avatar...Dude's saying to me, "That's just, like, your _opinion_, man.")

But here's the point: In Savage Worlds the players are given a whole boatload of resources and tools to mitigate that risk. There's a long menu of combat options that tip the odds in the heroes' favor, plus bennies (or Fate Chips) to reroll when the dice fail you, and an extra "Wild Die" for heroes to increase their chances of success. Yet, for all that, the inherent lethality of combat is preserved. And what it means is the players have a real stake in tipping the odds inherent to the system--it is all up to them.

What I see (and I could be wrong) is 4E lowering the risk by scaling the entire system's odds toward the players, as well as making risk situational (i.e. the trapped door is inherently less risky than the pit fiend behind it, because the door-risk is "less fun"). Savage Worlds provides the same hero-centric odds, except those odds are *only* maximized by wise player use of the tools they're given. You can maximize your odds in D&D with good tactics and use of combat maneuvers, of course, but what I see the "Fearless" article saying is, 'you don't need to bother with that because we tweaked the system for you.'

Now, that's a germane point because the designers have mentioned Savage Worlds numerous times. It's also completely irrelevant, in a way, because Savage Worlds doesn't typically use things like trapped doors as potentially lethal threats (I agree, they are less fun).  

In the end, it really is an individual choice. What kind of stakes do you enjoy? How do you enjoy your risk -- inherent or situational? Neither's better than the other.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, in my last 3e campaign, I killed a PC every three sessions for over 80 sessions.  Half of those were to failed saving throws.  I stuck to RAW as hard as I could, barring my own incompetence in interpreting rules.
> 
> I dunno about anyone else, but, that's just too friggin' lethal.  That's not heroic at all.  You couldn't be heroic in 3e if you stuck to core, because the game was just too lethal.  I wouldn't blame anyone whatsoever for taking the absolute most safest choices each and every time.



Yes, 3e is too lethal, particularly at very low and mid-high level. It's a legacy issue from old school OD&D and 1e. High lethality worked there because everyone had 5 PCs each plus henchmen. You didn't put a lot of work into a character's personality and background. There was no real sting to death, it was a minor inconvenience, especially with raise dead spells in the game too.

These days, people put a lot of work into their PCs. They are complex, both mechanically and story-wise. Multiple PCs per player don't really work as a result. The death rate is still high but now death is a big deal because you've actually lost something that mattered, both emotionally and in terms of the amount of work invested by the player. I found that to be the biggest problem running 3e - the delay when someone's PC dies.

Post old school solutions were to fudge the die rolls so PCs survived. Or give them free True Resurrections "just this once, 'kay". I'd prefer it if the rules made it harder to die.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>



Okay, I lol'ed. 

I am _so _ going to be fired.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yes, 3e is too lethal, particularly at very low and mid-high level. It's a legacy issue from old school OD&D and 1e. High lethality worked there because everyone had 5 PCs each plus henchmen. You didn't put a lot of work into a character's personality and background. There was no real sting to death, it was a minor inconvenience, especially with raise dead spells in the game too.



It also helped that it took about five minutes to go from blank notebook paper to brand new character.


----------



## Psion (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But Indiana Jones, in all the movies, never gets the equivalent of a rolled 1 that ends his life. Does this imply he is just "lucky", or that the (not actually existing, but let's pretend it does) rules contain enough wiggle room so that there is no single "1" that can lead to certain death?
> 
> The dangerous traps in Indiana Jones make us believe that they should be modelled as "save or die" traps in D&D, but the fact Indy never fails any of his saves and checks (and dying from it) could also indicate that they actually are not, and are better modelled by a different, more forgiving mechanic.
> 
> ...




FWIW, I grew up with ToH, but don't share the adoration of it. As I've commented about elsewhere, it's the materhorn of dungeon gaming, not the model for all dungeons.

I find people's comments to the tune of "finally! no more deathtrap dungeons" mystifying, considering that the frequency of such dungeons plummeted when the "save or die" poison damage was supplanted with ability damage. It's like people are clapping because we are solving a problem that has already been solved.

Turning my attention back to this...



> The dangerous traps in Indiana Jones make us believe that they should be modelled as "save or die" traps in D&D, but the fact Indy never fails any of his saves and checks (and dying from it) could also indicate that they actually are not, and are better modelled by a different, more forgiving mechanic.




I don't know about anyone else in the audience, but I relate to movies in a way different than I relate to games, and I find that most arguments that posit "if this movie ran like a game it would be a bad movie" while fundamentally correct, don't really make the intended case that makes the game in this case bad.

Y'see, the problem for me is that I see a big rock rolling at a person and I thing "that would squish me if it was on me", and necessarily think that Indy could get hurt. In a way, I am relying on the visual medium evoking my personal perception of the situation to tell me that Indy is in imminent danger, which is exciting.

In the game, however... I have a much more present measure of danger. I know what would cause my character to die. Failing a save could, as could a large application of HP damage. When I see a beholder in the game, I know I am in imminent danger, because I know that I will be repeatedly exposed to danger in its presence. Like Indy, I should run (unless I have a real good reason not to.)

So yeah, where am I getting with this? If you want to elicit fear and excitement from me over the fate of, make me believe my character is mortal. That doesn't mean filling a dungeon with bodaks and beholders. But do let me know there are things out there that can kill my character. Occasionally reinforce the point by taking one.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 21, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> It also helped that it took about five minutes to go from blank notebook paper to brand new character.



73 characters the summer I learned to play AD&D. . .good times.  good times.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 21, 2008)

Hmm, ya. On principle I agreed with a lot of it:save vs. die overdone in 3E, excess player caution no fun, I prefer to punish players but not kill them to often, just to have them raised back from the dead...but then again, you could run your 3E game pretty much the way he said 4E could be played. And I just didn't love it that much (except maybe the armor at the start). 

I agree that the various playtest reports have done a much better job of "selling" the game (Lizard: I really disagree with your "example", Le Rouse: that would be _TerraDave's_ Trap Fun thread...). 

The most interesting thing for me were the uses of the Arcana and Dungioneering skills.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Considering that "this" means: Doing stupid stuff only because it looks cool without there any risk for doing stupid stuff. I disagree.



I think what you like is stupid, so I guess we're even.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 21, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> To be fair, that's an equally inaccurate characterization of the expected 3e playstyle as the suicidal lemming comment. I'm sure most players didn't take 20 searching every 5-foot square they encountered during play.
> 
> What most players might have done is to take take as few risks as possible, and choose the safest (most logical, most tactical) option over the alternatives. If the 4e rules make risk-taking as viable as playing safe, then we might see more players taking more risks, and enjoying it.




Yeah. I'm not sure how the 3E system causes this sort of hyper-paranoid behavior. It's always seemed more like an artifact of the way DM's are occasionally encouraged to play and bad adventure designs. I got to fairly great pains to make sure that traps exist only on things that look like they'd be trapped.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> save vs. die overdone in 3E




This also mystifies me.  (I guess I'm a mystified fella these days.)  I can only remember offhand a couple effects that cause instant death with a failed saving throw:  Slay Living (of course) and Wail of the Banshee.  I haven't run games at super high level yet, though, so that may be my problem.

So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> I expect people to use it as often as necessary to return to full health, limited only by what the rules will allow. Once they've gone through their reserves for the day, I expect them to retreat and rest.
> 
> The corollary to that is that characters will throw all their 'dailies' at the first one or two encounters of the day, because they know they'll recharge them at the same time. Initially, they will find that 'balanced' encounters are a pushover, but DM's will adapt by upping the difficulty of those first two encounters to compensate...
> 
> ...



I wasn't so convinced at this at first, either, and there are still some aspects that I want to see (namely: Per Day spells) to gauge how they effect things. 

But I have hope. There was one post (I don't know if blog or on this board, but I suspect the latter) that described that, while _theoretically_ a character had still a Second Wind ability, it didn't mean he (or anyone else) could actually trigger it before he died. 
So, even if you have still 3 Second Winds left, if there are no more per encounter powers available to trigger them, you can't use them. So you can still suffer a real threat of death, despite being able to recover from it after the encounter. 
That sounds like a sensible way to mix per day and per encounter powers. The question is how this is transposed to spells or other per day abilities (if that has been done).


----------



## Derren (Feb 21, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> I think what you like is stupid, so I guess we're even.




For me sitting in a mine cart which races towards a gap in the rails and the only thing you do is cheering is a stupid idea (especially when you later say that jumping out of the cart is wrong).


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I find people's comments to the tune of "finally! no more deathtrap dungeons" mystifying, considering that the frequency of such dungeons plummeted when the "save or die" poison damage was supplanted with ability damage. It's like people are clapping because we are solving a problem that has already been solved.



This is true, but it misses the second point.  While random traps that kill you outright are mostly gone, there are still random traps.  Now they just do hit point damage, or inflict ability score damage.  Meanwhile the party has a cleric who can cure hit point and ability score damage.  The stake is lower- the deathtraps used to make you concerned with character death, and now they make you concerned with using up a cure spell, but its still annoying.

That's a fundamental flaw of the isolated, encountered-in-a-vacuum trap, which historically has been perhaps the most common kind.  If you have functionally unlimited time to prepare for encountering a trap, and functionally unlimited time to remedy the traps effects after the trap is over, you end up in this dichotomy where either the trap kills you (bad and overpowered) or does curable damage (lame and impotent).  The solution is to only use traps in the context of larger scenarios, such as by creating huge death traps that the whole party must enter at once, or by using the traps in conjunction with monsters and other challenges.  This requires different encounter design, because you don't have the time to do Search checks in the middle of a fight, but its usually more rewarding.


----------



## eleran (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> For me sitting in a mine cart which races towards a gap in the rails and the only thing you do is cheering is a stupid idea (especially when you later say that jumping out of the cart is wrong).




I don't think that Chris was saying the act of jumping out of the cart was wrong except in an "after the fact, hindsight being 20/20" sense.  It may have been the "right" thing for the character that jumped to do at the time of the action, but looking back at the result it was the wrong move.  

Or, that is how I read it anyway.


----------



## Psion (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This also mystifies me.  (I guess I'm a mystified fella these days.)  I can only remember offhand a couple effects that cause instant death with a failed saving throw:  Slay Living (of course) and Wail of the Banshee.  I haven't run games at super high level yet, though, so that may be my problem.
> 
> So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?




I dunno. Maybe TerraDave's DM throws the party into dungeons full of Bodaks, Beholders, and Medusae?   

I don't know either, man. I've killed far more PCs with HP damage under 3e than save-or-dies. And _do_ run high level games.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 21, 2008)

You know, there was a throwaway line somewhere, in one of the D&D articles, about there being more incentives to keep going past the "15 minute workday."  I think that suggests more than just second winds and per-encounter powers.  I really suspect that there's some kind of shift in the XP or reward model that gives PCs and incentive to hit more encounters per/day.

I thought that was so brilliant that I might make a house rule out of it.  The first encounter you have in a day is worth less XP than the fifth, or something.  I really, really like that idea.  It puts a mechanical framework in place to encourage players to try and stuff in one more good fight, and to husband their resources.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This also mystifies me.  (I guess I'm a mystified fella these days.)  I can only remember offhand a couple effects that cause instant death with a failed saving throw:  Slay Living (of course) and Wail of the Banshee.  I haven't run games at super high level yet, though, so that may be my problem.
> 
> So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?



For me: Bodaks. Especially Hordes of them. (at least twice)
And trapped Vases (triggered by our fellow bard, at the beginning of a session, in the middle of presenting my replacement characters). And it wasn't "Killer DM"s fault, it was Paizos Shackled City Adventure Path fault. 
Symbol of Death hidden behind a wand carpet.

That are the 3 I remember my characters fell prey to. There was more, but the victim not being me makes it harder to remember. 

(And then there where the encounters were PCs simply died because of the massive damage in the first combat round. Or the PCs that died because they had to face 3 monsters with Fireball as spell-like ability, all of them winning initiaitve and using this ability... Which isn't exactly Save or Die - for some characters, it was just die.  )


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?



There are a number of disguised instant death effects in D&D.  For example, a level 13 Disintegrate aimed at a level 13 Wizard is functionally save or die, because if it hits, and if the save is failed, the spell will do 26d6 damage (91 average) to a character with 4+12d4+13*con (60 average with con 14) hit points.  There are also effects which aren't technically save or die, per se, but might as well be- Flesh to Stone, for instance, turns you to stone on a failed Fortitude save.  Yes, you can be rescued, but you could have been Resurrected about as easily (Resurrect has material components, Stone to Flesh sometimes kills the target).


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> There are a number of disguised instant death effects in D&D.  For example, a level 13 Disintegrate aimed at a level 13 Wizard is functionally save or die, because if it hits, and if the save is failed, the spell will do 26d6 damage (91 average) to a character with 4+12d4+13*con (60 average with con 14) hit points.  There are also effects which aren't technically save or die, per se, but might as well be- Flesh to Stone, for instance, turns you to stone on a failed Fortitude save.  Yes, you can be rescued, but you could have been Resurrected about as easily (Resurrect has material components, Stone to Flesh sometimes kills the target).




Strange.


----------



## malraux (Feb 21, 2008)

Just to toss it out there, the reason Indian Jones movies are so exciting isn't because Indy disarms all the traps before they go off, its watching him deal with the trap after it does go off.  I'd much rather the game add the excitement of dealing with a trap, instead of the mechanistic approach of take 20 on search, roll DD and then either go beg the cleric for some cure wounds or ignore the trap.  But having to deal with the interaction of a trap going off _in an exciting way_, even if it means fewer trap encounters is far better than the way core 3e plays.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> For me sitting in a mine cart which races towards a gap in the rails and the only thing you do is cheering is a stupid idea (especially when you later say that jumping out of the cart is wrong).



*shrugs*  I think we should be happy with "You think what I like is stupid and I think what you like is stupid" and be done with it.  So I am.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> But having to deal with the interaction of a trap going off _in an exciting way_, even if it means fewer trap encounters is far better than the way core 3e plays.



I agree. That's why I favor large, interactive 'encounter zones' instead of static traps.

In other words, I want Disable Device to help *end* an encounter, not *bypass* it.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> For me sitting in a mine cart which races towards a gap in the rails and the only thing you do is cheering is a stupid idea (especially when you later say that jumping out of the cart is wrong).




In-character it's a choice of:

A. Attempt a crazy action to cause the cart to jump the gap in the rails.  This will either leave you safely undamaged on the other side or get you very badly hurt when the cart crashes.

B. Jump out of a speeding cart onto the track, guaranteeing that you will be injured.

The reason that option B "makes sense" is solely because the player knows that a little falling damage from a moving cart isn't going to seriously inconvenience their character, while a cart crash might hurt a lot more.

From a purely in-character perspective in a 4E game, the character either thinks that both options might break their neck or is pretty confident in their ability to survive both options.  (I'm not getting into that debate again.)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> I got to fairly great pains to make sure that traps exist only on things that look like they'd be trapped.



A place where *everything* is trapped - wagons, flowers, lamps, gloves, chamber pots - might be amusing for a while. Could be an alternate material plane. Or a very weird culture.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 21, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I also agree that it's easy enough to put "the deadly" back in the game, but if you don't like that option...don't play.




My guess is that the easiest option to do this is to take away one or two hit dice at 1st level.  I expect that doing so would level out the danger closer 3.5 levels, all through the power curve.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

In 3.5 I've lost a PC to a phantasmal killer trap and another to circle of death, 4th and 6th level spells respectively. I've died three times from a ragewalker's Induce Blood Frenzy ability. Two of those were the same PC (and the same ragewalker). DC 28 will save = ouch. The ability effectively means only the strongest melee character in the party survives. All three times that wasn't me.

As a DM I've killed a PC with a medusa's petrification as he failed his 'system shock' check to be stone to fleshed. And I caused a TPK with an umber hulk's confusion - everyone failed the save.

I'd say approximately half of all PC deaths are to SoDs or SoSomethingReallyBadHappens. A quarter are to big monsters with improved grab, those are vicious in 3e. The remaining quarter are miscellaneous.


----------



## Grog (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> To use my trusted movie examples, in 4E Indiana Jones would behave like the original Terminator.



No. In 4E, Indiana Jones behaves just as he does in the movies, and things happen the same way.

In 3E, Indiana Jones dies halfway through the first movie.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 21, 2008)

Grog said:
			
		

> No. In 4E, Indiana Jones behaves just as he does in the movies, and things happen the same way.
> 
> In 3E, Indiana Jones dies halfway through the first movie.



I disagree. 

1e = Indy dies. Indy's cousin Oklahoma finishes the film.

3e = Indy limps back to the surface, weakened, energy drained, and out of daily uses of his 'punch Nazi' power. The movie is 8 hours long.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I want to feel the game will be *hard*.



It's a mass market game. They want to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of PHBs. They're not making it hard. You make your game hard if you like. It's pretty easy, just increase the power and/or number of monsters relative to the PC's power.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a mass market game. They want to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of PHBs. They're not making it hard. You make your game hard if you like. It's pretty easy, just increase the power and/or number of monsters relative to the PC's power.




Sort of like how nothing in a family chain restaurant is going to be genuinely spicy, no matter what lies the little clipart pepper tells me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 21, 2008)

I don´t care if the game is not deadly... DnD should not be that deadly as it is today... If you want it more deadly, just increase the Monster/Trap Level.

the problem of 3.X is imbalance of attack vs defense, to the point that monsters are easy to kill, but can kill you easy too. Take dire animals  as an example (something like Attack +12 (2d6+10), rake, improved grab, but only AC 14).
If you put more durable monsters in a combat, the damage output is much too high.

If you look at the balor, you could actually survive a round or two if you are Level 15. And he is at no risk of beeing killed... actually you can let him appear, threatening the players and he will survive...

In 3.5 I had once a high level Rakshasa sorcerer who wanted to parley... of fear of beeing killed outright he used illusions and invis... and even with precautions he would have had nearly no chance to do any damage if he didn´t act first and killed all of them...


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 21, 2008)

JLXC said:
			
		

> Oh I get it, and yeah I'm done because I do see the uselessness in explaining heroism to cowards.  No wonder 4e is going to be the way it is if you're the average playtester.





OK, JLXC, I think you're going a bit overboard here calling out the other people on this thread as 'cowards'.

Actually, this discussion reminds me of one of the early X-Files episodes.  Mulder has finally located a UFO witness, who is a scrawny geeky guy who lives in a trailer.  At one point Mulder is going off to spy on bad guys and tells the geek to wait behind because it will be dangerous.

At which point the UFO geek deadpans, "it's OK, I didn't spend all those years playing D&D without learning a thing or two about courage".

Ken


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> er - Travel domain is given as one of the powergamer choices
> 
> Erase spell was given as a subpar character choice...
> 
> And why would you want clearly subpar character choices to be available in the game? Isn't it somewhat better if all PCs have a range of choices of equivalent value or interest?



I was quoting the relevant section for reference purposes; I understood the author's meaning just fine.

I don't want subpar choices.  That doesn't change that there will be subpar choices, despite the game designers' best efforts.  To claim otherwise ("Don't get me wrong: I like 3E as much as the next guy, but the unifying math behind the game tended to, well, allow for a range of options, to put it delicately") is either a sign extreme hubris, or of extreme ignorance of how games are played.


----------



## Cmarco (Feb 21, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> And the action movie garbage bothers me.  Is this game still playable if you don't want a two dimensional action-explosion fest?




As it has always been throughout D&D's 30+ year history, the game is what you make of it. My campaigns typically have a lot of dialogue, politics, intrigue, along with healthy doses of action and excitement. Just because combat plays more like an action movie doesn't mean that the whole campaign should be explosions, cool fatality-style kills, and death-defying stunts. It should be there if you want it, and it is.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's a mass market game. They want to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of PHBs. They're not making it hard. You make your game hard if you like. It's pretty easy, just increase the power and/or number of monsters relative to the PC's power.




They sold hundreds of thousands of copies of 3e. And *millions* of copies of 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.


----------



## Roman (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> For me: Bodaks.




True that! The D&D session before last, I killed one PC with the Bodak's gaze attack (he rolled a natural 1 on the saving throw roll...). It actually proved to be one of the best sessions I ever ran. The party was lucky that there was a major monastic temple in the relative vicinity located on holy ground in the Sky Mountains. In my campaign, resurrection can only be cast in major temples  and on major holy sites of the given religion and the party had to race to the temple in the mountains to revive their fallen friend and naturally had to face many obstacles on the way, gradually wearing them down. The tension and sense of urgency were great and tingled with the right kind of desperation as the party was running lower and lower on resources. I loved it and so did my players, as they confirmed post-facto! 

Resurrection also has a number of other 'features', such affecting the character mechanically depending on the deity that was petitioned for the resurrection - for example the fighter was resurrected by Ariran, the god of the sky, and as a result he cannot voluntarily hold his breath and deny himself air (the element that gave him a second chance at life), but that is for another discussion.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Basically, this article, to me, just reinstates the balanced math of the new system.



Reinstates the balanced math?  What does that even mean?  Sounds like something out of an old Dilbert strip.  Synergize the paradigms!


----------



## Clavis (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> They sold hundreds of thousands of copies of 3e. And *millions* of copies of 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.




I for one maintain that the specifics of the rules have nothing to do with whether or not people will buy D&D. They buy the game beacuse its branding is so strong that is synonymous with Role Playing Games. There could be a race of intelligent dinner plates in the PHB, and the game would still sell. In marketing terms, it's probably irrelevant how WOTC changes the rules. People don't but D&D for its rules. People who care about rules buy GURPS or HERO. People get into D&D because everybody plays D&D, so its easy to get introduced to it and find a group to play with.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 21, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I for one maintain that the specifics of the rules have nothing to do with whether or not people will buy D&D. They buy the game beacuse its branding is so strong that is synonymous with Role Playing Games. There could be a race of intelligent dinner plates in the PHB, and the game would still sell. In marketing terms, it's probably irrelevant how WOTC changes the rules. People don't but D&D for its rules. People who care about rules buy GURPS or HERO. People get into D&D because everybody plays D&D, so its easy to get introduced to it and find a group to play with.




I have heard this argument before, but my own experience is a good counterexample.

I started off playing D&D in the 70's, but in the early 80's my friends and I (about 10 of us) switched to RuneQuest because we thought the rules were better.  We never went back to D&D;  during that time I played a lot of RuneQuest, plus some Traveller, Torg, and Ars Magica.

It wasn't until 2000, when 3E was released with a radically better ruleset, that we went back to D&D.  All of us, in fact.

Ken


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Yes, I know what the Travel domain is, and what the Erase spell does (nothing useful).  But thanks for the condescension.
> 
> I don't want subpar choices.  That doesn't change that there will be subpar choices, despite the game designers' best efforts.  To claim otherwise ("Don't get me wrong: I like 3E as much as the next guy, but the unifying math behind the game tended to, well, allow for a range of options, to put it delicately") is either a sign extreme hubris, or of extreme ignorance of how games are played.




You are reading any condescension into it yourself - I thought you had genuinely misread or misunderstood the article from your earlier comment, and was pointing that out in a mildly humourus manner.

You'll have a much happier time on ENworld if you assume that people are nice and have your best interests at heart. In the mean time, if you *do* think that anyone is acting snarkily towards you, I'm sure that you know the appropriate thing to do is to report the post (using the triangle thingy) rather than be snarky back towards them.

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.




Man, you had a _weird _DM!


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This also mystifies me.  (I guess I'm a mystified fella these days.)  I can only remember offhand a couple effects that cause instant death with a failed saving throw:  Slay Living (of course) and Wail of the Banshee.  I haven't run games at super high level yet, though, so that may be my problem.
> 
> So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?



Tons of stuff.  The assassin's death attack is one that hasn't been mentioned yet.  And like Psion mentions, at high levels death from insane amounts of hit point damage can be a common occurance.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> You are reading any condescension into it yourself - I thought you had genuinely misread or misunderstood the article from your earlier comment, and was pointing that out in a mildly humourus manner.



I was quoting a snippet of the author's text for reference purposes.  Edited my post.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 21, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> at high levels death from insane amounts of hit point damage can be a common occurance.




The massive damage rules ensure a "save or die" DC 15 at least once a round at higher levels.  5% of those are auto-failed.  

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

> Reinstates the balanced math? What does that even mean? Sounds like something out of an old Dilbert strip. Synergize the paradigms!



 "Full energy to frontal deflectors. Torpedos to maximum spread. Reverse the polarity of the Tractor beam. Helm - Warp Factor 8. Energize!"



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> They sold hundreds of thousands of copies of 3e. And *millions* of copies of 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.



What were the alternative games out there then?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> The massive damage rules ensure a "save or die" DC 15 at least once a round at higher levels.  5% of those are auto-failed.
> 
> Thaumaturge.



Oh yeah, I forgot that one...


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 21, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Actually, the problem here is that you had no way of determining what was down the hole without committing yourself to encountering it. Nothing about Save or Die effects as near as I can tell.




Ah, but the paradigm that "one bad decision won't kill you" is very important to this play style. Interesting choices should have interesting consequences, even if those consequences turn out to be deadly themselves, the initial decision won't lead to an inevitable death. It might lead to a second decision that could lead to your death, but you won't go from everything being okay to dead with one choice.

This relates directly to the article in that the choice to jump the track probably won't lead to death itself. It might lead to a situation where death becomes much more likely, but it shouldn't itself lead to imminent, inescapable, death.



			
				jtrowell said:
			
		

> On the topic of a 4th level group beating a 11th level solo monster, note that with the 1/2 level progression, the base number is just a +3 difference (+2 for level 4 versus +5 for level 11, as I supposed it will be reounded down)




One thing I'd like to point out at this point (and I agree with you) is for everyone to keep in mind that since 3e goes to level 20 and 4e goes to level 30, a group of 4th level PCs in 4e beating an 11th level encounter is roughly equivalent to a group of 3rd level PCs in 3e beating a level 7 encounter. Very difficult, but not unheard of.


----------



## Roman (Feb 21, 2008)

Roman said:
			
		

> True that! The D&D session before last, I killed one PC with the Bodak's gaze attack (he rolled a natural 1 on the saving throw roll...). It actually proved to be one of the best sessions I ever ran. The party was lucky that there was a major monastic temple in the relative vicinity located on holy ground in the Sky Mountains. In my campaign, resurrection can only be cast in major temples  and on major holy sites of the given religion and the party had to race to the temple in the mountains to revive their fallen friend and naturally had to face many obstacles on the way, gradually wearing them down. The tension and sense of urgency were great and tingled with the right kind of desperation as the party was running lower and lower on resources. I loved it and so did my players, as they confirmed post-facto!
> 
> Resurrection also has a number of other 'features', such affecting the character mechanically depending on the deity that was petitioned for the resurrection - for example the fighter was resurrected by Ariran, the god of the sky, and as a result he cannot voluntarily hold his breath and deny himself air (the element that gave him a second chance at life), but that is for another discussion.




I should note that I do not mean to imply with the above that I am some ardent supporter of the save or die mechanic, though I do feel that it may be necessary in some instances to capture the flavor of some iconic effects/abilities (it should not have 1 as automatic failure in that case though), such as turning one's enemy into a harmless frog (baleful polymorph).


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 21, 2008)

A nice article, I guess... too bad it had little to do with 4e. I've been playing that way over multiple editions, now, so I didn't see anything relevant in the article.

Still waiting to see details.


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 21, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Of course not.  However, you're not having to rely on as limited a set of resources.  This is especially important when the resources are put into control of each of the characters (rather than in the hands of one or two characters..see "cleric."     )




Just to toss in a MMO related tale, many times in groups w/people you don't know, you may have at least one person completely unaware of how to fight the monsters and not pull aggro from the tank.  Which means they get creamed repeatedly and many times get other monster's attention, killing the entire party.  When someone gets killed being stupid several times, the general policy I have seen is that the person is either kicked from the group or the healer justs stops healing them, usually paired w/warnings that are intended to help guide their damage dealing.  Most people clue in pretty quickly what needs done, but some never learn.

If someone was doing stupid stuff all the time and kept getting seriously injured and I was one of the party healers, I would tell the guy to work on improving his Heal skill b/c until he started thinking about what he was doing a bit more, he wouldn't get any heals from me


----------



## Xethreau (Feb 21, 2008)

I like the change, both from a DM and a player standpoint.

One, as a DM, I do not have to be so scared of throwing fun/heroic/outside the box things at my players.  Also, I don't have to sit through all their "OMG, I have to inspect this" crap.  As it was said earlier in this thread, PC's are crazy paranoid.

As a player, this change makes a lot of sense to me.  It seems to me that characters are more likely to do heroic things because the rules are simpler.  Also, the things that traps do in 4e make a lot more sense to me than the 3e ones (yes, I am 18, and I did grow up playing Pokemon, Golden Sun, Final Fantasy, and Fire Emblem).  I am intrigued that 4th level characters can make the jumps (literal and otherwise) they mentioned in the article, but honestly, if you take a heroic class (and you are not just some bumpkin pigfarmer), then this is how it should be (no offense to IRL pigfarmers, I really like the bacon you make for me.)

Also, just because someone can survive does not mean they come out unscathed.  I am sure that if the characters had failed the Dungeneering check to jump the chasm (interesting....), they would have taken damage equivalent to "breaking some bones,"  or if the characters had been any less tacticle in taking on the 11th level solo creature, one or all of them might have died.  

Again, I really like this change.  My friend, who is the tutor of the newbie players, always talks about how one always has to be super careful, or else their character will get screwed over.  In my opinion, this is metagaming, and not in an OK way.  If a character is a paranoid crazy, well then alright, but if your character is brave, tactile, a coward, stupid-brave, or spends all day in ladida-land, then you should be able to play your character like that.  Penalties are ok, things like damage or an interesting circumstance, but characters should not get screwed over just for not thinking that the brick wall is sure to be trapped.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> What were the alternative games out there then?




Adventures in Fantasy
Age of Chivalry
Bifrost
 Boot Hill
Bunnies and Burrows
Chivalry and Sorcery
Empire of the Petal Throne
En Garde
Flash Gordon and the Warriors of Mongo
Gamma World
High Fantasy
John Carter, Warlord of Mars
Knights of the Round Table
Legacy
Metamorphosis Alpha: Fantastic Role-Playing Game
Monsters! Monsters!
Once Upon a Time in the West
Realm of Yolmi
RuneQuest
Simian Combat
Space Quest
Star Patrol
Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier
Starfaring
Starships and Spacemen
Superhero 2044
The Complete Warlock
The Fantasy Trip
The Infinity System
Traveller
Tunnels and Trolls
Uuhraah!
What Price Glory?!

Since you asked....

Several were already in their second edition.

(Edited for readability)


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Let me use this to address a slightly different concern -- is 4e any different at level 30 than at level 1?

By this I mean:
Level 1, assumed +1 bonus, DC for an 'untrained' task=10.
Level 30, assumed +15 bonus, DC for an 'untrained' task=25.

If the game scaled so that, basically, you have roughly the same odds of accomplishing a task of the same difficulty? And is task difficulty based on YOUR level, not the difficulty of the task? It's been implied that DCs are set by level, not circumstance, so a fighter trying to hang on to a minecart has a DC 10 check if the party is average first level, a DC 15 check if the party is average 10th level, and so on. Is that how it really works?

I may be misreading it -- it may be the DMG says "Hanging on to a mine cart is a DC 20 task, so be careful asking parties of less than 10th level to try it".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

OT, but Just to prove what an oldster I am, I've bolded the ones that I used to play...



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Adventures in Fantasy
> Age of Chivalry
> Bifrost
> *Boot Hill*
> ...




Great list there, BTW. You could also include (off the top of my head)

*Dragonquest *(SPI)
*Villains and Vigilantes*


----------



## Lizard (Feb 21, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Great list there, BTW. You could also include (off the top of my head)
> 
> *Dragonquest *(SPI)
> *Villains and Vigilantes*




1980 and 1979, respectively.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/ 

(Lest anyone thing I knew that off the top of my head)

I originally had just named 6 or 7 I knew for sure were out when I first picked up the dice, then decided for a more authoritative list than my own fading memories, because I know *someone* here would have said something like "Hah! That game out in 1979, not 1978! Liar! You lie! Any more LIES, LIAR? Everyone see how Lizard LIES to prove his point?" 

I heart the net, I really do...


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> The massive damage rules ensure a "save or die" DC 15 at least once a round at higher levels.  5% of those are auto-failed.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




Are you serous?  Once a round?  I can see some spells doing 50 points of damange in one strike, but I can't imagine that much damange being slung around every round.  The bite of a great wyrm red dragon can't even inflict 50 points if maximum damage is rolled.  (Of course, it's breath weapon is another story, but it should be.)

Hmmm....


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Let me use this to address a slightly different concern -- is 4e any different at level 30 than at level 1?
> 
> By this I mean:
> Level 1, assumed +1 bonus, DC for an 'untrained' task=10.
> ...




I don't think we know yet, but I've always conjectured that part of what they meant by 'fixing the math' was exactly this.  There are precedents.  One of the deliberate design features of Diablo was that it was designed to scale such that no matter how much more powerful you became, the game played basically the same because the challenges were scaling up at pretty much the same rate.  So that, the way the first few levels of normal mode played out, could play out again in pretty much the same way on nightmare mode.



> It's been implied that DCs are set by level, not circumstance, so a fighter trying to hang on to a minecart has a DC 10 check if the party is average first level, a DC 15 check if the party is average 10th level, and so on. Is that how it really works?




We don't know.  They've been very tight lipped about the specifics.  I'd guess that since in practice it often worked that way in 3E that its likely to formally work that way in 4E.  I certainly don't think these are standard dungeon features mentioned in a skill description.

I really really wish that more time was spent discussing the examples.  My impression is that we are looking at low DC skill checks (and possibly reflex saves) where 1 is not an automatic failure.  So for example, jumping the gap apparantly took something like a DC 12 dungeoneering check (failure and the ride stops, take maybe 6d6 damage).  Given that everyone's skill at everything gets better with level, a DC like that would give anyone a reasonable chance of guiding the cart, and insure that someone skilled would almost certainly make it.  You can run this same scene with 3E PC's a couple levels higher than 4E ones (to make up the gap in HD), and using DC's slightly lower than the 4E ones (to account for skills not scaling with level) and it would play out pretty much the same provided you provide an impetus for using the cart (like to get away from a mob of goblins chasing you, or a flood of lava).  What I really want to know is how the specific 4E mechanics enabled this scene.  What is better about how 4E manages this scene than how an equivalent scene would play out in 3E.  That's what you need to sell me on.  

Don't tell me that this sort of scene is new and unique to 4E.  That's going to just irritate me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 21, 2008)

Great resource!

I find that I've owned or played 8 of the games from 1981 and 11 from 1983, probably my student heyday


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Are you serous?  Once a round?  I can see some spells doing 50 points of damange in one strike, but I can't imagine that much damange being slung around every round.  The bite of a great wyrm red dragon can't even inflict 50 points if maximum damage is rolled.  (Of course, it's breath weapon is another story, but it should be.




Between spells and classed NPCs critting with big weapons, it's reasonably common.  Maybe not once/round in every fight, but it's often enough.

We stopped using massive damage rules years ago.  The sense of verisimilitude wasn't worth it, in our opinion.

Brad


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> Between spells and classed NPCs critting with big weapons, it's reasonably common.  Maybe not once/round in every fight, but it's often enough.
> 
> We stopped using massive damage rules years ago.  The sense of verisimilitude wasn't worth it, in our opinion.
> 
> Brad




Massive damage hasn't come up much in my games, but since the characters are approaching high-ish levels now, I imagine it will become more common.

I'm thinking of houseruling that massive damage causes a creature to be dazed for one round unless the save is made.  Sounds reasonable to me.

Of course, I'm sure someone will claim that that being dazed is also a save or die effect.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Are you serous?  Once a round?  I can see some spells doing 50 points of damange in one strike, but I can't imagine that much damange being slung around every round.  The bite of a great wyrm red dragon can't even inflict 50 points if maximum damage is rolled.  (Of course, it's breath weapon is another story, but it should be.)
> 
> Hmmm....




Hmm... let's do some quick number crunching for a _greatsword +5_-wielding fighter 16

start with 2d6+5 from the sword
Str 26 (start with a 16, +4 from levels, +6 belt) = +12 damage (2-handed)
weapon specialization = +2 dmg
weapon mastery = +2 dmg
greater weapon specialization = +2 dmg

So now you're doing 2d6 + 23, and will always do at least 50 damage on a critical hit. Power attack for 8 and you can do 50 dmg on a regular hit. Power attack for 14 and you will do 50 dmg on a regular hit.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> Hmm... let's do some quick number crunching for a _greatsword +5_-wielding fighter 16
> 
> start with 2d6+5 from the sword
> Str 26 (start with a 16, +4 from levels, +6 belt) = +12 damage (2-handed)
> ...




Well, someone proved a while back that Power Attack was useless, I believe, so that's that. 

Seriously, those are interesting numbers.  The characters in my campaign are not maximized melee powerhouses by any means, so I guess that's why this nastiness hasn't become apparent to me yet.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 21, 2008)

3e, for all intents and purposes, is far more deadly than 1e when it gets to the higher levels. 15th level adventuring - which is what I've been running a lot of recently - is terrifying once you start looking at the DCs of spells and abilities.

DC 25 is fairly standard with some of the monsters. What's the "low" save of your PC? Somewhere about +10, if you're lucky.

That's a 70% chance of failing your saving throw. For Wizards, the hit point damage is likely to kill you.

Of course, there are spells that will make you immune to certain "death" effects (fire, death, electricity, etc.) but rarely do they last long enough to be reliable in combat.

Cheers!


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Cutter XXIII said:
			
		

> There is no risk, or "boldness," or "fearlessness" in a game without a significant possibility of failure.




Exactly. Now, define "failure".


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> To use my trusted movie examples, in 4E Indiana Jones would behave like the original Terminator.




And this is a BAD thing??


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 21, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I heart the net, I really do...




Stop with all this baseless LYING!! *grin*


----------



## Spatula (Feb 21, 2008)

The massive damage save was introduced in 2e to account for high-level characters intentionally walking off cliffs, secure in the knowledge that 20d6 could not kill them.  There wasn't really that much else in 2e that could reliably deal 50 points of damage in one attack.  It was brought over into 3e probably without much thought about how damage scales at the upper reaches of the game.  I simply ignore the save, myself.


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> 3e, for all intents and purposes, is far more deadly than 1e when it gets to the higher levels. 15th level adventuring - which is what I've been running a lot of recently - is terrifying once you start looking at the DCs of spells and abilities.
> 
> DC 25 is fairly standard with some of the monsters. What's the "low" save of your PC? Somewhere about +10, if you're lucky.
> 
> ...



 Heh. The monster in Age of Worms that scared us most wasn't Dragotha or Kyuss. It didn't even have any instakill spells. It was a buffed fang dragon with an AC of ~50, and damage on a full attack around 500. It (literally) ripped the barbarian a new one, we ran away, and we were too scared to go back.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Seriously, those are interesting numbers.  The characters in my campaign are not maximized melee powerhouses by any means, so I guess that's why this nastiness hasn't become apparent to me yet.




That character is hardly a maximized melee powerhouse. He's using all of one non-PHB feat (weapon mastery from the PH2), and is a brain-dead built, power-attacking, greatsword-focused fighter with a straightforward +x weapon with no specials and a stat booster. I don't know the wealth-by-level number for a 16th-level character off the top of my head, but I think that they can afford a _belt of giant strength +6_ and a _greatsword +5_ pretty easily.


----------



## MerricB (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Heh. The monster in Age of Worms that scared us most wasn't Dragotha or Kyuss. It didn't even have any instakill spells. It was a buffed fang dragon with an AC of ~50, and damage on a full attack around 500. It (literally) ripped the barbarian a new one, we ran away, and we were too scared to go back.




Yeah. Kyuss didn't even get an action in the final battle.

The monster to end all monsters for us was the Overworm (?), with a terribly high grapple check that just swallowed the barbarian and that was that.

Cheers!


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 22, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Healing in 4E will also not be unlimited.




I'd actually be interested to hear a source/explanation on this... I kind of figured that clerics and warlords got something like Cure Light Wounds as an at-will ability, just like wizards get Magic Missile. (I had actually assumed that Second Wind was per-encounter as well, but I'm probably wrong on that one.)

As others have pointed out, if there's a hard daily limit on healing spells, we're still stuck with the "15-minute workday."


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 22, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Yeah. Kyuss didn't even get an action in the final battle.




Probably a good thing....


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> They sold hundreds of thousands of copies of 3e. And *millions* of copies of 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.




Charles Ryan (former brand manager for D&D) said that 3rd Edition sold better than any other edition of D&D. If 1e sold millions, then 3e sold millions more.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 22, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan (former brand manager for D&D) said that 3rd Edition sold better than any other edition of D&D. If 1e sold millions, then 3e sold millions more.




Not bad for something so completely unfun. 

I kid, I kid!


----------



## Lizard (Feb 22, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan (former brand manager for D&D) said that 3rd Edition sold better than any other edition of D&D. If 1e sold millions, then 3e sold millions more.




Not a surprise. Did it sell more than 1e over the entire 10 year run of 1e? If so, cool. I didn't know that. (I knew it blew 2e out of the water, but that's no shock -- it did a great job of bringing back 'lapsed' gamers and drawing in new ones, and the OGL explosion sort of cemented it as the dominant game in the crucial first few months.)

4e has a lot to live up to, sales-expectation-wise.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not a surprise. Did it sell more than 1e over the entire 10 year run of 1e? If so, cool.




I think everyone has 1e as "best-selling" firmly in their mind because that's the edition in which D&D truly entered the mainstream consciousness, and where pretty much all the stereotypes (basement dwelling nerds; D&D promoted devil-worship; Mazes & Monsters; BADD) come from. D&D is just a part of our culture now, so it doesn't stand out as much as it did 30 years ago.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Not a surprise. Did it sell more than 1e over the entire 10 year run of 1e? If so, cool. I didn't know that. (I knew it blew 2e out of the water, but that's no shock -- it did a great job of bringing back 'lapsed' gamers and drawing in new ones, and the OGL explosion sort of cemented it as the dominant game in the crucial first few months.)
> 
> 4e has a lot to live up to, sales-expectation-wise.



 When I picked up the Worlds & Monsters book, I asked the game store guy if they also had Races & Classes. He said they'd sold the last one just 10 minutes ago. To which I replied, there's more WotC bitches out there than I thought.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Feb 22, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Chris Youngs (though still credited as Chris Thomasson) wrote an article on how the math of 4e has affected his playing style:
> 
> http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dred/20080220a



Bit late to the party it seems, but I have to say after reading this and from having played Saga Edition, I am really starting to look forward to 4e.

Used to be I could only truly get reckless with a PC at a one-shot con game, where you really didn't give a crap about the outcome.  But if 4e allows me to run PCs with a penchant for "reckless heroics," then so much the better


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> When I picked up the Worlds & Monsters book, I asked the game store guy if they also had Races & Classes. He said they'd sold the last one just 10 minutes ago. To which I replied, there's more WotC bitches out there than I thought.




Did you ask him about his mom? He might have sold her, you know, and probably you would have gotten more our of her than R&C.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'd actually be interested to hear a source/explanation on this... I kind of figured that clerics and warlords got something like Cure Light Wounds as an at-will ability, just like wizards get Magic Missile. (I had actually assumed that Second Wind was per-encounter as well, but I'm probably wrong on that one.)
> 
> As others have pointed out, if there's a hard daily limit on healing spells, we're still stuck with the "15-minute workday."



 I ran a game with barely any per-day powers, except for healing (4 Bo9S characters, 1 tweaked dragon shaman, reserve points from UA). I didn't have any 15-minute workday problems.

The key here is that healing is a contingent ability. Using it depends on external factors, so the rate at which you can expend it is capped: if the group doesn't take more than X damage, you don't have to use up more than X healing. Contrast with offensive powers which can generally be expended as fast as you like, until they're gone. If you cast 2 meteor swarms, that will end the battle faster than if you cast 1.

Now, it is true that you can't keep going indefinitely if healing is limited. But there should still be plenty of scope for multiple dynamic battles in the one day, which are interesting in themselves rather than being there solely to wear down resources. The idea is that each battle isn't so tough that it forces the party to use up all their healing while still providing plenty of opportunities for challenge, tactical thinking, and/or spectacular moments of violence.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Did you ask him about his mom? He might have sold her, you know, and probably you would have gotten more our of her than R&C.



 R&C has pictures of dragonborn with boobs. Does YOUR MOM have that?

HAW HAW!


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> R&C has pictures of dragonborn with boobs. Does YOUR MOM have that?
> 
> HAW HAW!




Um, is *your* mom a Dragonborn?   

That explains a lot... (such as you trying to buy this book to see boobs -- there are *magazines* that have such pictures, you know? And they're cheaper, too.)


----------



## Lizard (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> When I picked up the Worlds & Monsters book, I asked the game store guy if they also had Races & Classes. He said they'd sold the last one just 10 minutes ago. To which I replied, there's more WotC bitches out there than I thought.




This would be more informative if I knew how many he had in stock.

"I bought 500 and sold them all!" (Impressive, and proves PT Barnum was right, as if we had any doubt...)[1]

"I bought one back in October and FINALLY someone bought it!" (Less impressive.)

I know that my FLGS has had the same copy for R&C on the shelves for months, and as far as I can tell, hasn't even ordered W&M. (I ask to be shown all new gaming stuff, and that never came up...) By the same token, he says a lot of the local gamers ARE hot for 4e, so, who knows? 

[1]20 bucks for crunch-free fluff, said fluff speculative and out of date by the time of publication, also, all over the internet?


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Um, is *your* mom a Dragonborn?




Insert generic food metaphor here.



> That explains a lot... (such as you trying to buy this book to see boobs




You say this like it's a negative thing.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 22, 2008)

I can't even get through 3 pages without commenting... 

I think that no matter what, there will be those that find fun and excitement in a WOTC preview article, and those that will find problems and no-fun in the article.

If you aren't interested in looking for how your game might be improved and are looking for reasons why 4e will suck eggs, well, you can find it, if you try hard.

But if reading an editorial with no mechanics and general descriptions of events (which all sound pretty darn fun to me) can lead one to think 4e will have a "Care bear" game style, create "suicidal lemmings", and will bring "no meaningful risk in the game", then geez...  I am not sure what to say.  

Wait for the rules before washing the new edition with broad strokes of bad-fun. 

The Rouse gave some very clear examples of there being danger and risk.  The sum of the game is not an editorial from a WOTC staffer stoked about his experience and sharing it with everyone.

<Humming>  "Same ol' song and.... same ol' song and dance"


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2008)

A house rule I toyed around with has been allowing clerics to cast Cure Minor Wounds at will.  That means that you never have the situation where you fight, heal, then rest.  You only have to rest when you're truly out of gas.  Higher level healing is for in combat.

I haven't test driven it yet, but, I think it would work.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A house rule I toyed around with has been allowing clerics to cast Cure Minor Wounds at will.  That means that you never have the situation where you fight, heal, then rest.  You only have to rest when you're truly out of gas.  Higher level healing is for in combat.
> 
> I haven't test driven it yet, but, I think it would work.




That would involve an awful lot of touching.


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Another way to reduce the importance of healing is to provide lots of freely-usable ways of reducing/negating damage taken. Eg if the defender gets a shout that gives everyone DR /10 for 1 round, and is usable every encounter (or even at will).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2008)

I know that in my last campaign, we had a cohort Truenamer.  Now, the truenamer mechanics aren't the most wonderful, but, he could give people a fast healing ability 10 for 5 rounds.  We chucked the idea that you couldn't Take 20 with truename spells, because that rule makes utterly no sense, which meant that he could bump you about 50 hp's about 10 or 12 times a day.  

No good in combat of course, but, it sure made the game run smoother.  Finish a fight, heal up, keep going.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 22, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In 3.5 I've lost a PC to a phantasmal killer trap and another to circle of death, 4th and 6th level spells respectively. I've died three times from a ragewalker's Induce Blood Frenzy ability. Two of those were the same PC (and the same ragewalker). DC 28 will save = ouch. The ability effectively means only the strongest melee character in the party survives. All three times that wasn't me.
> 
> As a DM I've killed a PC with a medusa's petrification as he failed his 'system shock' check to be stone to fleshed. And I caused a TPK with an umber hulk's confusion - everyone failed the save.



Last Sunday I came _this_ close to generating a TPK for my 4th and 5th level PCs when they went up against a pair of harpies.  Round 1, the harpies started to sing.  Everyone failed their saving throws except the warmage, who just kept firing at them while they tried to take down the party.  If he had failed one or the other of his saves, they'd have all been toast.  Of course, I use action points, so they could have started burning off action points to get additional saves, but I do that for exactly the reason that D&D is too lethal.



> I'd say approximately half of all PC deaths are to SoDs or SoSomethingReallyBadHappens. A quarter are to big monsters with improved grab, those are vicious in 3e.



Same session, the rogue almost got chewed to paste by a huge crocodile.  1d12+13 per round, or something like that.  I only could miss her on a 1, then improved grab.  The only reason she survived is because someone gave the croc a good reason to do a tail swipe, so it took the -20 to grapple and she managed to slip away.  Another round and she'd be rolling up a new character.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Heh. The monster in Age of Worms that scared us most wasn't Dragotha or Kyuss. It didn't even have any instakill spells. It was a buffed fang dragon with an AC of ~50, and damage on a full attack around 500. It (literally) ripped the barbarian a new one, we ran away, and we were too scared to go back.



I hope to GOD that I get the chance to sic that particular puppy on my players.  I think I hurt myself just by reading his stats.  Also, if my players are reading this, _MWUAHAHAHA!!!_


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A house rule I toyed around with has been allowing clerics to cast Cure Minor Wounds at will.  That means that you never have the situation where you fight, heal, then rest.  You only have to rest when you're truly out of gas.  Higher level healing is for in combat.
> 
> I haven't test driven it yet, but, I think it would work.



I just give my players full HP between combats.  And they still get their butts whupped on a fairly regular basis.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 22, 2008)

It's all about the expected playstyle, if the DM and players are on the same page then regardless of how exactly they play it'll be fun for all involved.  

I just seem to prefer a harsher, more deadly playstyle than many.  I like SoDs, I like clever traps and clever ways to avoid/disarm them, hordes of vicious enemies, random encounters of random CR.  Anyway that's peripheral.  What I read says that risks have been reduced, randomness reduced.  And those tend to go against my preferred playstyle.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 22, 2008)

See I don't get your comment on randomness being reduced, it isn't random when you hit a SoD and all you can do is either roll and pass or roll and die.

I think it is more random and more in-game challenging to have to figure out on the fly out of the multiple means of dealing with a scenario/trap what the proper course of action is.

I think this also makes it MORE gritty since grit to me isn't about a person just dying thats it. It is about having to twist and turn and wiggle your way through tough encounters, through various means. Your battered and bruised at the end, but your made it through, and toughened up for the next thing to be thrown in your face.

Also with hordes of vicious monsters well given that we can actually deal with hordes of vicious monsters now and it is built into the ruleset I would think that be a good-thing for 4e in your eyes.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> It's all about the expected playstyle, if the DM and players are on the same page then regardless of how exactly they play it'll be fun for all involved.
> 
> I just seem to prefer a harsher, more deadly playstyle than many.  I like SoDs, I like clever traps and clever ways to avoid/disarm them, hordes of vicious enemies, random encounters of random CR.  Anyway that's peripheral.  What I read says that risks have been reduced, randomness reduced.  And those tend to go against my preferred playstyle.




Ok, I'll buy that.  Fits with how I play as well.

How do you get around the fact that you are whacking PC's every other session or so?  Don't your players get annoyed by the fact that any PC they create, they may as well not bother with a background, because the PC won't survive long enough for the background to matter?

I have zero problems whacking PC's.  I'm pretty good at it.    But, honestly, I wish 3e made it a trifle harder to do.  A given monster of CR=PC level, quite possibly can kill a PC in one round.  Granted, the chances are not high, I realize that.  But, the chances are very much real.  Over a fairly short span of time, you should be killing PC's regularly, regardless of how cautious the players are, simply because of the way the math in 3e works.

How do you deal with that?  Or do you deal with it at all?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 22, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How do you get around the fact that you are whacking PC's every other session or so?  Don't your players get annoyed by the fact that any PC they create, they may as well not bother with a background, because the PC won't survive long enough for the background to matter....How do you deal with that?  Or do you deal with it at all?



Generally at lower levels I average 3-4 PC deaths per session.  Beyond 12th level it tapers off to about 1 every two to three sessions, would be higher but my group knows how to powergame and does it well.  I get around it with a very old school technique, the "raiding party" which is essentially 4-6 PC parties traveling as a dispersed group.  Basically the idea is low level PCs are well aware of how crunchy they are and travel in larger groups so that losses can be soaked and individual groups rotate from the hot zone to be replaced by a fresh group if needed.  Around 10-13th level these groups break up into component parties as the surviving members have become forces in their own right and less squishy.  By this time player favorites will have developed and these can be the group the campaign follows with short jaunts to the other parties of the old raiding group if things bog down or they feel like a change.  



			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> See I don't get your comment on randomness being reduced, it isn't random when you hit a SoD and all you can do is either roll and pass or roll and die.



Odd given that it's the very definition of randomness.  It's purely luck (dice) driven and has results that no character action can mitigate.  


			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I think this also makes it MORE gritty since grit to me isn't about a person just dying thats it. It is about having to twist and turn and wiggle your way through tough encounters, through various means.



That's a fallacy, my encounters tend to be quite tough, and I like to see them creatively worm through a brutal encounter.  But without that extra spice of random capricious death being possible my group doesn't find encounters to be brutal.  the find them too predictable and not possession the required impression of risk.


			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Also with hordes of vicious monsters well given that we can actually deal with hordes of vicious monsters now and it is built into the ruleset I would think that be a good-thing for 4e in your eyes.



I've done hordes of monsters through 3 editions now.  I do large encounterers just fine in 3e, and could do them in another system just as well (Okay not GURPS Vehicles but that was just sadistic).  I don't need 4e rules to do what I already manage, and I don't like the changes to monster design philosophy in the new edition.  So it's anything but a draw.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 22, 2008)

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess this is just the impass of different gaming styles but, well this is what it is like with my group.

*Basic SoD:* Despite the most indepth, interesting description of the SoD, it is still *yawn* "okay I roll this, *rolls* "oh I succeded, okay *moves on* (or) *rolls* "crap, I failed... umm cleric a little help here".
*
With multiple-approach traps:* *Trap is set off* "hmm lets see, if the trap is swinging down, my best bet is to doge aside, but wait! wasn't that crate nearby, hmm... *checks strength and initative* "awesome, I can pull this off" *quickly shoves crate into path of trap blocking it* "great it worked!"
*
Tough Encounter with SoD:* "okay, you guys get ready" *Medusa petrifies* "what, I failed, what can I do then?" "nothing" "nothing! You mean thats it, I can't fight back I can't try and shake the effects off?" "nope, your now stone" *player waits out fight, while others fight*
*
Tough Encounter without SoD:* "okay, you guys get ready" *Medusa begins to petrify character* "we have to get to him soon or hey may get it, Rogue! distract the medusa! while I try to get him out"

*Shrugs shoulders again* I dunno but in my and my groups eyes without SoD is quite alot more fun and interesting, as well as still being gritty because of having the characters actually have grit and the capabilities to survive by the skin of their teeth.

Now I am not saying SoD should be eliminated completely it has its place, but as a common element of the game, not in my books.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Let me use this to address a slightly different concern -- is 4e any different at level 30 than at level 1?
> 
> By this I mean:
> Level 1, assumed +1 bonus, DC for an 'untrained' task=10.
> ...



I might be wrong, but I would assume that your formula works for "typical challenges of your level". 

A 4th level hero needs to beat a DC 12 to steer the roller coaster mine cart.
A 14th level hero encountering the same mine cart would still need a 12. But he probably won't encounter the same mine cart. He is in a different dungeon,one with a large break in the track and a fiery hoop he has to jump through and with Ogers sidelining the path. He needs a DC 17 to make the jump over the break through the hoop. 
A 24th level hero might find a mine cart on broken rails, with only 2 wheels, and jumping throug an reserve gravity field. off course, he needs to beat a DC of 22 to make the jump...

Off course, any given hero will only ever encounter one of these mine cart rides. And the rules will probably not tell you how awesome you need to describe the cart ride to make the DC and "level appropriateness" feel "reasonable".


----------



## Primal (Feb 22, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You say this like it's a negative thing.




Oh no, I was just giving a friendly advice: you don't have to buy R&C to peek at boobs (well, others than those of your mom) -- there are magazines that are way cheaper than R&C that feature boobs.


----------



## cwhs01 (Feb 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Generally at lower levels I average 3-4 PC deaths per session.  Beyond 12th level it tapers off to about 1 every two to three sessions, would be higher but my group knows how to powergame and does it well.




I can't really decide wether or not i like this kind of dnd. I suspect it might decrease the interesting personalities and details of individual pc's, but at the same time i see a lot of opportunities for unusual rp'ing. It could be very cool to rp this large group or band of adventurers trying to decide who gets to adventure with Goodewill, cleric of the healing god, and who gets to go with assasinor the tiefling... ranger.

I would probably enjoy it for a short campaign, but i suspect i will get anoyed at how often i had to roll up new characters and invent backstories/personalities (so its more detailed than generic fighter #7).


----------



## Derren (Feb 22, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> I'd actually be interested to hear a source/explanation on this... I kind of figured that clerics and warlords got something like Cure Light Wounds as an at-will ability, just like wizards get Magic Missile. (I had actually assumed that Second Wind was per-encounter as well, but I'm probably wrong on that one.)
> 
> As others have pointed out, if there's a hard daily limit on healing spells, we're still stuck with the "15-minute workday."




That is speculation on my part based on the posts from Wotc_Shoe who compares the efficency of his 4E party with leaders to a 4E party without leaders.
The important part is that he says that the party with leaders can have 1-2 encounters more per day than the leaderless party before having to rest.

So if there is limitless healing in 4E, only leaders will have them. Without them its back to 15 minutes work day. At "worst" it means that healing is still a limited resource (which makes sense  as otherwise non deadly traps wouldn't work. Hit by 50 damage form a fireball trap, fall into a pit, whatever? Heal up and continue).
So its either 15 minutes workday, leader classes are mandatory for serious adventures or both.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=219557


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> Oh no, I was just giving a friendly advice: you don't have to buy R&C to peek at boobs (well, others than those of your mom) -- there are magazines that are way cheaper than R&C that feature boobs.




But none of them have DRAGONBORN boobs.

They can hold the tiefling tails, though. DO NOT WANT TAIL.

HAW HAW!


----------



## hong (Feb 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Generally at lower levels I average 3-4 PC deaths per session.  Beyond 12th level it tapers off to about 1 every two to three sessions, would be higher but my group knows how to powergame and does it well.




So, not so much WoW as Warcraft 3...?


----------



## shilsen (Feb 22, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I just give my players full HP between combats.  And they still get their butts whupped on a fairly regular basis.



 Precisely the same here. It doesn't actually matter so much in my game since I don't run dungeon crawls and I rarely have multiple encounters in a day, so the PCs would have been able to heal up after a fight easily enough anyway, but even when I do have multiple encounters, having automatic healing up between encounters hasn't affected my ability to challenge them constantly.


----------



## shilsen (Feb 22, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Generally at lower levels I average 3-4 PC deaths per session.  Beyond 12th level it tapers off to about 1 every two to three sessions, would be higher but my group knows how to powergame and does it well.  I get around it with a very old school technique, the "raiding party" which is essentially 4-6 PC parties traveling as a dispersed group.  Basically the idea is low level PCs are well aware of how crunchy they are and travel in larger groups so that losses can be soaked and individual groups rotate from the hot zone to be replaced by a fresh group if needed.  Around 10-13th level these groups break up into component parties as the surviving members have become forces in their own right and less squishy.  By this time player favorites will have developed and these can be the group the campaign follows with short jaunts to the other parties of the old raiding group if things bog down or they feel like a change.




I'm glad it works for you, but I just can't be that kind and gentle as a DM, and I refuse to use kid gloves on my PCs. So I've mostly taken death out of my game. That way, there's no real way for the PCs to escape their suffering and torture, and when they fail, they have to live with the repercussions of their failures. I won't even kill them at lower levels, since that means they can avoid serious attachment to their PCs until much later and won't be as affected when horrible things happen to them. It would be akin to just handing them a "get out of jail free" card, or more precisely, a "your PC is dead so nothing bad can happen to him any more" card. Hell, no! I've sometimes had players saying that it would just be much kinder of me to just kill their PCs, and I've even considered it a few times, but I just wouldn't be able to enjoy a game that soft. Maybe I'm just mean and hardcore.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 22, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'm glad it works for you, but I just can't be that kind and gentle as a DM, and I refuse to use kid gloves on my PCs. So I've mostly taken death out of my game. That way, there's no real way for the PCs to escape their suffering and torture, and when they fail, they have to live with the repercussions of their failures.



If the reprecussions of failure are worse than death, do you allow your PCs to sacrifice themselves heroically to prevent failure?  There are myriad ways to do this depending on the situation, and there are many cases where my PCs would rather die than let the BBEG get away or triumph, or where they would give their lives to protect family, clan, or kingdom.  It's not that I want to throw away my PCs... but I usually play pretty heroic and driven PCs who would lay down their lives for a good cause if need be.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 22, 2008)

Hehe.



 What?


----------



## shilsen (Feb 22, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> If the reprecussions of failure are worse than death, do you allow your PCs to sacrifice themselves heroically to prevent failure?  There are myriad ways to do this depending on the situation, and there are many cases where my PCs would rather die than let the BBEG get away or triumph, or where they would give their lives to protect family, clan, or kingdom.  It's not that I want to throw away my PCs... but I usually play pretty heroic and driven PCs who would lay down their lives for a good cause if need be.




Oh, sure - they can sacrifice themselves heroically to prevent failure if they want. That's mostly in theory, however, since they haven't yet actually managed to do so. In most of the dire situations they've experienced, they've had to suck it up and survive. Anyway, I kinda prefer it that way. Dying for a cause is really easy and requires no particular effort. Living for a cause? Now that takes some serious effort and heroism.


----------



## DarkKestral (Feb 22, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Dying for a cause is really easy and requires no particular effort. Living for a cause? Now that takes some serious effort and heroism.




I like the way Robert Jordan put it in the Wheel of Time books. While they started dragging after a while, sometimes he had some nice material.

"Death is lighter than a feather, but duty is heavier than a mountain."


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 22, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Dying for a cause is really easy and requires no particular effort.



Well, the dying part is easy, but actually finding a way to do it so that it makes a difference can be tricky, epic, and cinematic.  My druid may be doing this next session... 2 PCs dead, 3 plus a cohort remaining, immensely difficult fight.  Of my druid's 10 remaining tactics to try, 2 are near-certain death for when all else has failed.  Retreat is a possibility, but would only be used if it seemed that the death gambit wouldn't defeat the opponent.  

So death+success > fleeing > death+failure.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm pleasantly surprised to find that I'm _not _ the only DM who had hit points refresh between encounters.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'm pleasantly surprised to find that I'm _not _ the only DM who had hit points refresh between encounters.



We do it also. We call the mechanic "Wand of Cure Light Wounds". 

Okay, so maybe it isn't exactly an house rule the way we do it. But it's rare for anyone to enter combat not at 100 % hit points. (And it's also rare for combats not to bring some of the melee combatants close to zero, either - and that's with us playing the Paizo Adventure Paths most of the time.)


----------



## jtrowell (Feb 22, 2008)

I am currently running a campaign where I started making some change imported from Star Wars Saga and what I think will be in 4th edition.

I will not write about all of the change I did, but one of them was about the healing powers : 

if they use the version that now works at will or per encounter, they cannont heal more than half their max hit points (the equivalent of a bloodied state).

If they want to heal more than that they must use their power points (per day ressource)

So with this rule, if they have time to rest a few minutes after a battle, they are sure to go back to at least 50% their hit points.

More than that, and they have to sacrifice a few precious power points (with my variant system, they only get half the normal total, in exchange of being able to use some weaker version of some powers free of charge at will or per encounter)

This has 2 major advantages : 

- they always start a fight at least with 1/2 HP, so they are less tempted to do the 15 minutes workday, while still trying not to get hurt too much (if they could heal fully without expending something, they would propably be tempted to go nova more)

- with weak version of some powers useable at will or per encounter without expending power points, even easy fights become more fun for the player, as they can still do some damage without worrying of 'wasting' ressources.

The 14th level wilder being able to use a free 4d10 mind thrust (or 8d10 with a wild surge) once or twice per encounter (I use a recharge system inspired by Tome of Battle, the wilder using something not unlike the crusader random recharge) for 0 psi points (unless he try a wild surge and overload) is not broken for his level, but it's still better than using a crossbow.


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We do it also. We call the mechanic "Wand of Cure Light Wounds".



In all seriousness, that's how it started for my group!

The PCs were going through healing wands like PEZ dispensers, which motivated me to eliminate "speed bump" attrition encounters and focus on _fewer _ but _tougher _ encounters. This in turn inspired us to tinker with per/encounter abilities and self healing and all kinds of weird stuff that is strangely echoed in 4e.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 22, 2008)

DarkKestral said:
			
		

> I like the way Robert Jordan put it in the Wheel of Time books. While they started dragging after a while, sometimes he had some nice material.
> 
> "Death is lighter than a feather, but duty is heavier than a mountain."



That's either an allusion to, or direct plagiarism from, _Go Rin No Sho_ (Book of Five Rings). "Death is a feather, duty is a mountain."

(Given what I think about Jordan, I submit that it's the latter.)


----------



## Stormtalon (Feb 22, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Last Sunday I came _this_ close to generating a TPK for my 4th and 5th level PCs when they went up against a pair of harpies.  Round 1, the harpies started to sing.  Everyone failed their saving throws except the warmage, who just kept firing at them while they tried to take down the party.  If he had failed one or the other of his saves, they'd have all been toast.  Of course, I use action points, so they could have started burning off action points to get additional saves, but I do that for exactly the reason that D&D is too lethal.




Yeah, harpies almost caused a TPK for me a while back as well.  Think I had 2 harpies plus the higher-powered one from the MM as their leader.  The party was doing fine as they had a bard countersinging -- until the lead harpy got a lethal crit on the bard with her +1 composite frost longbow.

The only member of the party to make their will save turned out to be the druid's animal companion: a dire wolverine -- he'd already been wounded and thus was in one of those nasty rages.  That was the only thing that saved them.

The bard player was, well, actually overjoyed that she had to roll up a new character.  She sorta hated her bard....


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 22, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I'm glad it works for you, but I just can't be that kind and gentle as a DM, and I refuse to use kid gloves on my PCs. So I've mostly taken death out of my game. That way, there's no real way for the PCs to escape their suffering and torture, and when they fail, they have to live with the repercussions of their failures. I won't even kill them at lower levels, since that means they can avoid serious attachment to their PCs until much later and won't be as affected when horrible things happen to them. It would be akin to just handing them a "get out of jail free" card, or more precisely, a "your PC is dead so nothing bad can happen to him any more" card. Hell, no! I've sometimes had players saying that it would just be much kinder of me to just kill their PCs, and I've even considered it a few times, but I just wouldn't be able to enjoy a game that soft. Maybe I'm just mean and hardcore.




I like yer attitude. And rolling a new character every game is meh...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, that's how it started for my group!
> 
> The PCs were going through healing wands like PEZ dispensers, which motivated me to eliminate "speed bump" attrition encounters and focus on _fewer _ but _tougher _ encounters. This in turn inspired us to tinker with per/encounter abilities and self healing and all kinds of weird stuff that is strangely echoed in 4e.



We're a bit less enthusiastic on house-rulings such things, but when we first discussed the per encounter paradigmn of 4E on this forum (you might remember the "Why is it important..." thread, that I will not link to here to avoid dread thread necromancy  ), I noticed that thanks to loads of Wands of Cure Light Wounds, higher level D&D already makes hit points into a per encounter resource.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I noticed that thanks to loads of Wands of Cure Light Wounds, higher level D&D already makes hit points into a per encounter resource.



In your experience, is that a 3E innovation or has it always been that way?
It was my experience that wands and staves were used more cautiously in earlier editions, because they weren't easily made and there wasn't the assumption they were for sale.

I did really like the design of the Basic Set's Staff of Healing -- Cure Light Wounds (1d6+1) once per day per person, with no charges used up.


----------



## shilsen (Feb 22, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> We do it also. We call the mechanic "Wand of Cure Light Wounds".




You old fogey! You need to upgrade. It's called the Wand of Lesser Vigor now 

I assume that PCs have enough of those to heal themselves and I don't even charge them for the wands right now.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 22, 2008)

> It's called the Wand of Lesser Vigor now



Yeah, we considered that. But CLWs seem to go a little quicker (~5 points of healing per round instead of 1), even if a little more expensive (twice as much?). And while we allow the WotC "splats" usually, we don't use it as heavily as the core stuff. (But don't let that fool you into believing we're not power-gaming.  )



			
				Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In your experience, is that a 3E innovation or has it always been that way?
> It was my experience that wands and staves were used more cautiously in earlier editions, because they weren't easily made and there wasn't the assumption they were for sale.
> 
> I did really like the design of the Basic Set's Staff of Healing -- Cure Light Wounds (1d6+1) once per day per person, with no charges used up.



I haven't played D&D before 3rd edition. But I think it's a 3E "innovation". 
And as I said, I think it wasn't entirely intentional. The costs of a Ring of Regeneration are so out of proportion to the cost of even loads of Cure Light Wound Wands, that I don't think the designers really saw what their magical item guidelines implied. Even with the added benefit of reattaching or regrowing limbs, the cost of the Ring can't be justified in light of the wand costs. 

My question regarding this is whether it was a good "innovation" or a bad one? 
And I really don't know. With the advent of action points, I sometimes believe we "forgot" the intention of hit points, since we're using new mechanics that on a very basic level do the same as the older one. Hit Points, Action Points, Healing Surges, Reserve Points, Karma Points, are all "points of avoiding nasty things happening to my PC". 
Hit points were used against avoiding "nasty weapon killing my PC", and for some reasons it was deemed appropriate that some kinds of magic can bypass this nastiness buffer. But way later in the evolution of D&D, people add action points or reroll mechanics to provide a nastiness buffer against spells (and other effects that are not based on hp). 

On the other hand, different types of nastiness buffers might be interesting. You could have "Combat Hit Points", "Social Hit Points", "Research Hit Points", "Travelling Hit Points", and depending on a characters focus, you would have different counts for each of them. 

Maybe one should start smaller. One general buffer type might be enough. That's what Torg did with its "Possiblities". You used them for rerolls, buying off damage or paying for special powers...


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 22, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That's either an allusion to, or direct plagiarism from, _Go Rin No Sho_ (Book of Five Rings). "Death is a feather, duty is a mountain."
> 
> (Given what I think about Jordan, I submit that it's the latter.)




I'm not sure what you're implying here. But by all accounts Jordan was a man of impeccable character.

Jordan was extremely well read, and was always open about the influences in the Wheel of Time. He has always said in numerous interviews that the entire series is an amalgam of real world myths and cultures throughout history. Thats one reason the series has such resonance with so many fans.

Of course he probably got it from the Book of Five Rings. Jordan's never said otherwise, AFAIK. So what?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 22, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> You old fogey! You need to upgrade. It's called the Wand of Lesser Vigor now



For some reason I like to stick with the good ol' CLW. My group never upgraded to Lesser Vigor.

<- Old school.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 22, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> In your experience, is that a 3E innovation or has it always been that way?



It's a 3e thing.

Though in most of the mid-level or higher games of 1e and 2e I was in, players cheated and gave themselves Rings of Regeneration to avoid the problem. Man, there were some Xmas trees back then. No wealth by level guidelines can lead to some pretty bad munchkinry.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 22, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> For some reason I like to stick with the good ol' CLW. My group never upgraded to Lesser Vigor.
> 
> <- Old school.



If you're not burning through at least 3 CLW wands per session, it's not D&D!


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 22, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That's either an allusion to, or direct plagiarism from, _Go Rin No Sho_ (Book of Five Rings). "Death is a feather, duty is a mountain."
> 
> (Given what I think about Jordan, I submit that it's the latter.)




It's not nice to speak ill of the dead. I submit the former.

Jordan was very upfront about cribbing large parts of the _Wheel of Time_ from real-world cultures, myths and legends. And among the cultures on which he drew heavily were those of the East, like China and Japan. The ancient symbol of the Aes Sedai is nearly a Yin-Yang, deliberately unbalanced by eliminating the "dots" to represent the disharmony between male and female power in his world. The borderlands have strong eastern influences, from names to topknots, to their training methods, and yes, their sayings.

Rand and Lan carry what are basically Samurai swords, for cryin' out loud! Jordan was blatantly alluding to real world culture because "The Wheel of Time turns and Ages come and go." It's supposed to be "our world." Someone asked Jordan what the folks in the Wheel of Time world call their planet and Jordan stared at them in disbelief before simply replying "Earth."

He even makes some vague references to things in our century. For instance, in _The Eye of the World_, Thom Merrilin is asked by Egwene to tell them "about Lenn who flew to the moon in the belly of an eagle made of fire" and "his daughter Salya walking among the stars." 

Having trouble with the reference?

Lenn = "John Glenn" (see note*) or "Lunar Escape Module (LEM)"
Belly of an eagle = "The Eagle has landed."
Salya = "Salyut Rocket."

Of course, they're allusions, rather than being direct. Then there's Mat's floppy hat and his spear-staff which looks like _Gungnir_ and is engraved with two ravens and the lines about "Thought" and "Memory." Oh yeah, and all the prophecies indicating Mat will lose an eye...

He's hardly subtle, but "plagiarism" is pretty harsh. It would be more accurate to say "clothing old bones with new flesh."

Besides, I've read _Go Rin No Sho_, and I can't find that quote anywhere in it. I know it's a traditional saying in Japan, but while Musashi talks about many things, I can't find any real discussion of "duty" in the book. Maybe I just missed it.


* Before anyone corrects me, I'm fully aware that the astronauts on Apollo 11 were Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, but Glenn was the first American to orbit the Earth, and it would be very believable for the story to become garbled and joined into one.


----------



## vazanar (Feb 22, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're implying here. But by all accounts Jordan was a man of impeccable character.
> 
> Jordan was extremely well read, and was always open about the influences in the Wheel of Time. He has always said in numerous interviews that the entire series is an amalgam of real world myths and cultures throughout history. Thats one reason the series has such resonance with so many fans.
> 
> Of course he probably got it from the Book of Five Rings. Jordan's never said otherwise, AFAIK. So what?




Yeah lets avoid going down the copying road. If you are well enough read of older books pretty much every idea in current media is somewhere from them. It just matters how much you know of the older versions. (Which of course lead to the funny concept of some of my students thinking Gandalf's fight with the Balrog a copy of Star Wars)

Jordan's whole concept of WOT was reusing old stories and books. Heck his Aiel tactics lesson came right out of Zulu. However, that was the intention.


----------



## vazanar (Feb 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> He even makes some vague references to things in our century. For instance, in _The Eye of the World_, Thom Merrilin is asked by Egwene to tell them "about Lenn who flew to the moon in the belly of an eagle made of fire" and "his daughter Salya walking among the stars."
> 
> Having trouble with the reference?
> 
> ...




They do tend to be all over the story, the scene after the sword in the stone, when Thom talks how he might be the hero of the next generations version of the story. Raising Kings and having fire fly from his hand. Merillin --> Merlin.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 22, 2008)

> Though in most of the mid-level or higher games of 1e and 2e I was in, players cheated and gave themselves Rings of Regeneration to avoid the problem. Man, there were some Xmas trees back then. No wealth by level guidelines can lead to some pretty bad munchkinry.




What do you mean here by 'cheat'?  You mean that they mysteriously found 'rings of regeneration' on thier character sheet, or that they 'forgot' to subtract damage from attacks?  Either case says nothing about how 1e played when you were sticking to the rules.

Now, if you merely mean, 'All high level players wanted regeneration', I agree.  But I don't see how they 'gave themselves' rings of regeneration.  DM's could very easily control the acquisition of items in 1e so that 'kits' like 3e's big 6 never became a problem.  I never saw a 1e fighter with gauntlets of ogre power and a belt of storm giant strength (or any of the better belts), despite the obvious utility of the combo.  

And what do 'wealth by level' guidelines have to do with anything?  I've had 1e characters worth more than a million gold pieces, but I couldn't have just walked out and bought a 'ring of regeneration' or a 'staff of power' simply because I wanted these things.  I had to find them, and I was only going to find them if the DM thought they were appropriate things to let loose in his campaign.

I personally think alot of the problem with 'hit points as a per encounter resource' could be fixed simply by making 'Craft Wand' apply only to arcane spells.  You could still burn through treasure to heal up, but you likely wouldn't do it except before important fights that you didn't have time to rest up for.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Feb 22, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's not nice to speak ill of the dead. I submit the former.
> He's hardly subtle, but "plagiarism" is pretty harsh. It would be more accurate to say "clothing old bones with new flesh."



Not much new flesh there. The sentence is almost exactly identical to the proverb.

The quote _comes_ from Go Rin No Sho, and became a proverb of the samurai. Now, it's certainly fair to suggest that since it became a proverb of sorts, that it's now such a generalized expression that Jordan isn't really stealing it, any more than references to casting the first stone or the mote in another's eye in a book would really be plagiarism per se. But this kind of naked statement minus attribution strikes me much more as ripping off than adding richness. 

But as I said, I don't think much of Jordan's writing. And the quote you cited about (G)Lenn and Salya[ut], etc. just reinforces the impression that this is reference to other sources done incredibly badly and to little purpose. Heck, even his modification of the aphorism about _giri_ is unbelievably clumsy compared to the original.

But now we're severely off topic. My apologies.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 22, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Not much new flesh there. The sentence is almost exactly identical to the proverb.
> 
> The quote _comes_ from Go Rin No Sho, and became a proverb of the samurai. Now, it's certainly fair to suggest that since it became a proverb of sorts, that it's now such a generalized expression that Jordan isn't really stealing it, any more than references to casting the first stone or the mote in another's eye in a book would really be plagiarism per se. But this kind of naked statement minus attribution strikes me much more as ripping off than adding richness.
> 
> ...




I certainly don't think that Jordan is a great novelist, but I think at this point you've gone too far.  There are alot of valid critiques of Jordan.  But yours is an excessively petty and argumentative one.  And I know all about excessively petty arguments. 

Jordan is not a particularly inventive writer.  The whole first half of 'Eye of the World' reads like a blatant ripoff of Tolkien.  However, the same could be said of quite a few fantasy author's early efforts.  And it is true that alot of the stuff in his novel is taken directly from other sources, and that people don't know this might be disappointed to discover that he's not as original as they might like to believe.  But I think that plagarism takes it too far.  I'm as familiar with Tolkien's language as anyone who doesn't have the last name, and if Jordan had have used similar phrasing at any point I would have noticed.  

Paraphrasing 'Go Rin No Sho' is no more plagarism than paraphrasing the Bible or Greek myths.  It is a literary technique called allusion, and in the context of a fantasy that explores the notion of reoccuring myth and history it is more than completely acceptable - it is part of what makes WoT potentially more than an interesting sword and sorcery bodice ripper.  Jordan shows a nice breadth of education and thought in his use of allusion, and it makes for a richer reading experience.  Sadly, Jordan never does live up to the potential here or really of any of his early story elements, nor is he being particularly original even so.  The very same allusion, in very much the same usage, and in a work of far more literary merit occurs in Gene Wolfe's 'Book of the New Sun'.

If you wish to tell me that Gene Wolfe's use of allusion without attribution is a cheap ripoff which doesn't add richness, I'll forever distrust your taste in literature.  There isn't a finer wordsmith working in the English language today.  I'll stack 'Book of the New Sun' or 'Wizard Knight' up against anything by any author.

Jordan isn't up to that standard.  But neither is he a poor writer.  He is actually a very good writer.  He writes powerfully, evocatively, stirringly, passionately, and at times even movingly.  He makes good use of language.  He has a good ear.  He's not even completely lacking in creativity, for all the fact that you can find marks of Tolkien, Herbert, Wolfe, Malory and various other sources all over his works.  (If you are going to draw inspiration from something, might as well be the good stuff.)  Sadly though, he lacks a good sense of story.  He tends to ramble.  Far too many pages go by with nothing really advancing the story.  He tends to forget plot elements that he's already introduced, and tends to introduce new plot elements to no real purpose.  He gets too easily caught up in soap opera melodramatics.  But these are principally flaws in the craft of story telling, and not his writing itself. 

And you can't really fault his productivity, save to wish he'd got started earlier in life or lived longer.  I wish I had half of his ability to bang out pages.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 22, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This also mystifies me.  (I guess I'm a mystified fella these days.)  I can only remember offhand a couple effects that cause instant death with a failed saving throw:  Slay Living (of course) and Wail of the Banshee.  I haven't run games at super high level yet, though, so that may be my problem.
> 
> So what causes instant death in D&D v.3.5?




Ok, I have one NPC, from an official adventure, sitting right in front of me.

Lets see, in the adventure he's got prepared: 

-_Slay Living _ and _Destruction_: true "save or die"
-_Phantasmal Killer_: save twice or die
-_Harm_: essentially save or die
-_Disintigrate_: just about save or die for many charecters

Of course I don't have to use these spells as a DM. But I would like alternatives. And just on principle, that fact that this guy, since he is a certain level, is suddenly loaded with these things, I don't much like.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 22, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> 1980 and 1979, respectively.
> 
> http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/encyclopedia/




So


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 22, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> And you can't really fault his productivity, save to wish he'd got started earlier in life or lived longer.  I wish I had half of his ability to bang out pages.




Well, if you had a stable of ghost writers, you would have his ability to bang out pages. Do you really think it's possible for these people to turn out thousand-page books annually, like quite a few of these modern writers do?    They just write the parts they want to, and let the anonymous drudges fill in the rest of it. So don't feel bad -- it's not some mysterious skill on Jordan's part, just that he has a lot more money than you do, and so can hire people to make him even MORE money.

Back on topic -- it seems excellent that they're reducing save or die situations. Heck, at low levels, every fight is pretty much save or die. You ever see an orc's greataxe crit on a 1st level warrior? Dropped instantly. Basically, it came down to, 'whoever hits first, wins' in a lot of low-level combat. Probably the same at high levels with death effects.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 22, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *The quote comes from Go Rin No Sho,* and became a proverb of the samurai. Now, it's certainly fair to suggest that since it became a proverb of sorts, that it's now such a generalized expression that Jordan isn't really stealing it, any more than references to casting the first stone or the mote in another's eye in a book would really be plagiarism per se. But this kind of naked statement minus attribution strikes me much more as ripping off than adding richness.




Emphasis Mine. Reiterating a point doesn't make it true. Please provide chapter and verse so I can verify your claim. I freely admit it's a Japanese proverb - I just question _The Book of Five Rings_ as the source. I've got a copy in front of me, and I couldn't find the quote, but to be fair, my copy's not indexed.

Beyond that, the characters in the novel mention it as a "proverb" in the Borderlands (pretty much Jordan's Japanese analogue culture). It's not like Lan, as a character in a fictional book that has no "Japan," would be able to say "as they say in Japan..." He instead intones it as a common proverb from the WoT-equivalent.

How would you suggest a fictional character in a fictional world properly "attribute" a real-world saying? Beyond making it as obvious as Jordan did, I can't imagine. As far as Jordan himself goes, he readily admitted, in interviews about the novels, that it was a Japanese proverb that he paraphrased. He never claimed credit for inventing it, and readily corrected people who thought he had. That's about as much as he can do.

Well, unless you're saying all real world proverbs are simply off-limits for use in fictional worlds. Or that the author must provide detailed footnotes of their source, like "Footnote: Japanese Proverb."

Still waiting on the actual quote (chapter and verse) from _Go Rin No Sho_.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 22, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Well, if you had a stable of ghost writers, you would have his ability to bang out pages. Do you really think it's possible for these people to turn out thousand-page books annually, like quite a few of these modern writers do?




Sorry, but that sounds like sour grapes from someone who wanted to be a writer. Don't diminish other's achievements. Back when I was in college, I churned out a 20-page essay in a single day, and I'm far from being a professional writer. However, if I did that every day, I'd be able to produce a 6000 page manuscript in a single year. A thousand-page book is hardly beyond comprehension. And Jordan usually took 2 years...

So, do you have any proof for your claim? Or are you just making baseless accusations?




			
				Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Back on topic -- it seems excellent that they're reducing save or die situations. Heck, at low levels, every fight is pretty much save or die. You ever see an orc's greataxe crit on a 1st level warrior? Dropped instantly. Basically, it came down to, 'whoever hits first, wins' in a lot of low-level combat. Probably the same at high levels with death effects.




I think most of us are agreed that the reduction in save-or-die effects will be good. Frankly, I'm eager for D&D to embrace the pacing of, say, a James Bond or Jason Bourne movie instead of, say, _The Russia House_.


----------



## shilsen (Feb 23, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I personally think alot of the problem with 'hit points as a per encounter resource' could be fixed simply by making 'Craft Wand' apply only to arcane spells.  You could still burn through treasure to heal up, but you likely wouldn't do it except before important fights that you didn't have time to rest up for.




The only problem with "hit points as a per encounter resource" is that WotC isn't explicitly making it a rule that PCs start all fights at 100% of hit points. But luckily I can achieve that with an easy house rule, as noted above. Of course, people who DM with kid gloves and run low-risk campaigns can't really do that, because they have to drastically reduce PC hit points before any given encounter for there to be anything of a challenge. But then they're probably also the people being kind enough to kill PCs left and right. 

Ah well, if nothing else it shows that there are myriad ways of playing the game. As long as WotC doesn't require me to tone down my game, I'm happy. And from the looks of things, 4e is going to suit me a lot. I can understand that when D&D was invented it needed to mollycoddle players to get them to play, but I like the fact that they've decided to get hardcore.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that sounds like sour grapes from someone who wanted to be a writer. Don't diminish other's achievements. Back when I was in college, I churned out a 20-page essay in a single day, and I'm far from being a professional writer. However, if I did that every day, I'd be able to produce a 6000 page manuscript in a single year. A thousand-page book is hardly beyond comprehension. And Jordan usually took 2 years...




I can regularly produce 5K words/day. At Mongoose, I did a 128 page book every month -- and game writing is a lot harder than fiction writing, at least for me. So a 1000 page book every two years is perfectly reasonable. Many authors produce far more without gohstwriters -- look at the output of some of the pulp authors, for instance.


----------



## Primal (Feb 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But none of them have DRAGONBORN boobs.
> 
> They can hold the tiefling tails, though. DO NOT WANT TAIL.
> 
> HAW HAW!




Oh, you're into *that* stuff... slimy things with boobs and whatnot. Still, don't buy R&C just to see Dragonborn boobs -- it's much cheaper if you just take some photos of your mom undressing. And you get more pictures than there are in R&C, hey?

HAW HAW!


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 23, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I just seem to prefer a harsher, more deadly playstyle than many.  I like SoDs, I like clever traps and clever ways to avoid/disarm them, hordes of vicious enemies, random encounters of random CR.




It's funny, I like Ken Hood's Revised Grim n Gritty, which is rather free w/damaging and damaging effects, but I hate traps and random encounters.  Hordes of enemies rock tho and 4E does that much better than 3E does, so the designers say


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 23, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> It's funny, I like Ken Hood's Revised Grim n Gritty, which is rather free w/damaging and damaging effects, but I hate traps and random encounters.



*shrugs* everybody's got a different style.  I thought Grim & Gritty lowered the power curve too much.  I don't play D&D for "realism" I like the existing powercurve even at higher levels, I just mix things up in a more sandbox style.  My settings and campaigns tend to have a RIFTSish OOT danger level than a Middle Earth of DaleyDale style.


			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Hordes of enemies rock tho and 4E does that much better than 3E does, so the designers say



Agreed hordes of enemies rock, I just don't like the way 4e is redesigning monsters and if I don't have trouble with it now why switch?


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> What do you mean here by 'cheat'?  You mean that they mysteriously found 'rings of regeneration' on thier character sheet, or that they 'forgot' to subtract damage from attacks?  Either case says nothing about how 1e played when you were sticking to the rules.'




But they do say something about how much fun 1E was if played by the rules, padawan.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But they do say something about how much fun 1E was if played by the rules, padawan.




Wise man say, "Don't start edition wars, grasshopper."


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wise man say, "Don't start edition wars, grasshopper."



 No, you're supposed to use a generic food metaphor here. Something like "1E is like tomato sauce, but 3E is ice cream".

WHY DO I HAVE TO THINK OF EVERYTHING AROUND HERE??/


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, you're supposed to use a generic food metaphor here. Something like "1E is like tomato sauce, but 3E is ice cream".




I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.


----------



## hong (Feb 23, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.



 Primal does this better than you.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 23, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Primal does this better than you.




You've used that line before.  And it was wrong then too.  

Another wrong guess and you'll have a complete hangman, hong man.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 23, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that sounds like sour grapes from someone who wanted to be a writer. Don't diminish other's achievements. Back when I was in college, I churned out a 20-page essay in a single day, and I'm far from being a professional writer. However, if I did that every day, I'd be able to produce a 6000 page manuscript in a single year. A thousand-page book is hardly beyond comprehension. And Jordan usually took 2 years...
> 
> So, do you have any proof for your claim? Or are you just making baseless accusations?




Baseless accusations? I like your ad hominem attacks on me, I guess those don't count as baseless accusations in your book. But it just shows your caliber quite clearly.

As a matter of fact, I AM a writer -- I've been published. Ever matched that, Mr. Snow? Two of my stories have been published on the BattleCorps science fiction site, at what is generally considered to be a low-end professional rate of 4 cents per word. My third story is currently being reviewed for publication.

And I also wrote -- completely singlehandedly -- a complete 160,000+ word campaign setting for the 3.0 OGL. Go to Amazon.com, search for "Acrohelion." That's mine, jacko. Hell, I'll even send you an autographed copy of it, if you PM me your address. It certainly didn't make the best-seller list, but it definitely shows that I know what I'm talking about more than someone whose life accomplishment in the literary field is, by their own admission, one 20-page paper. 

Nor do I consider stating that these writers who churn out endless copy with seemingly only a few months pause to be "sour grapes" or a "baseless accusation." 

I did not state that this was negative.

Did you know that most of the famous Renaissance artists had large groups of apprentices/hirelings who did most of the painting for them after they sketched the painting, and then came in to put in the finishing details? 

It's not something I would do, but if someone puts out a 30-book series in 10 years, I'm kind of inclined to think that they're not spending every waking moment slaving over a typewriter. Not if they've got millions of dollars, which they do. I don't care if they do. Go ahead. No skin off my nose.

But, I'm not going to take your pointless, holier-than-thou sneers for no reason. Those scientists were right when they described Internet message boards as "jousting with midgets."

So take *your* baseless accusations and stuff them.


----------



## Rel (Feb 23, 2008)

Ok, let's back down on the snark and let's drop the business about Robert Jordan entirely.


----------



## Lord Kyle Windsor (Feb 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> They sold hundreds of thousands of copies of 3e. And *millions* of copies of 1e, when you rolled for hit points at first level and were often killed by small weasels.




What do books sales have to do with anything?  Most of the peeps I game with purchased two or three copies of the 1st Edition PHB and DMG, not to mention multiple copies of the Monster Manual and various other books.   I wonder what those sales would have been like if prices were comparable to the 3E prices (back in the 80s I could pick up a PHB for $9.95 at Play Co.), or if all of the 1E product were easily available to anybody with a computer...


----------



## Lizard (Feb 23, 2008)

Lord Kyle Windsor said:
			
		

> What do books sales have to do with anything?




The original argument was "4e is a mass market game, so it has to be easy! People won't buy a game that's hard!"

My reply:"1e AD&D was hard, and was more 'mass market' than any other RPG, except (perhaps) 3e, which was also pretty hard." THAT'S why book sales matter. Because we're discussing book sales. When discussing apples, apples matter. 

BTW, use Mr. Inflation Calculator to see what that PHB costs you in 2008 dollars. THEN figure in the page count of the 3.5 PHB, the fact it's in full color, and tell me if the 1e one was cheaper...

Never mind. I'll do it for you.

9.95 in 1978 (when I bought my PHB for 9.95) is 33.68 in 2007 dollars.

The 1e PHB was 128 pages in black and white (and crappy art). For almost 34.00 in modern money.
The 3.5 PHB is 316 pages in full color (and good art). For 29.95 in 2007 dollars.


----------



## Lord Kyle Windsor (Feb 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The original argument was "4e is a mass market game, so it has to be easy! People won't buy a game that's hard!"
> 
> My reply:"1e AD&D was hard, and was more 'mass market' than any other RPG, except (perhaps) 3e, which was also pretty hard." THAT'S why book sales matter. Because we're discussing book sales. When discussing apples, apples matter.
> 
> ...




Got it. Think I skipped a page in there.  Probably shouldn't post while on the phone. Haha.  

Truth is, I don't care about what the cost is if you factor in inflation, or what the cost is per page.  What I know is that when I was ten years old and wanted to go buy a copy of Unearthed Arcana, I had zero problem saving up ten bucks for it.  And I know my friends had little problem getting a hold of books for whatever game we were playing -- Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, whatever.  And I'm also quite certain that a kid who wanted to pick up a D&D books would have a much easier time selling their parent on a book for $9.95 than they would a book for $24.95 or whatever the current books are going for.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 23, 2008)

Lord Kyle Windsor said:
			
		

> Truth is, I don't care about what the cost is if you factor in inflation, or what the cost is per page.  What I know is that when I was ten years old and wanted to go buy a copy of Unearthed Arcana, I had zero problem saving up ten bucks for it.  And I know my friends had little problem getting a hold of books for whatever game we were playing -- Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, whatever.  And I'm also quite certain that a kid who wanted to pick up a D&D books would have a much easier time selling their parent on a book for $9.95 than they would a book for $24.95 or whatever the current books are going for.




Given that kids today have no trouble buying 50 dollar video games, I don't see it. A movie ticket, popcorn, and soda can easily come to 20 dollars -- for 2 hours entertainment. Spending nine dollars more to buy a book which can provide years of play? A no-brainer.

It's rather illogical to suggest that, if 9.95 had the buying power in the late 1970s that 30 dollars does now, that it would be harder now to aquire the same amount of actual money. (i.e, 33 dollars). If your parents were willing to give you ten dollars in 1980, they should be willing to give you 30 dollars now, since it's the same amount of money in buying power, and that's all that matters. Sure, if the books cost 9.95 in modern dollars, it would be much easier, since that's $2.94 in 1978 dollars. It would also mean the publisher was out of business, since such a book would sell at a huge loss.

If you think you can profitably produce a book like the PHB and sell it for 9.95, go right ahead. The SRD is out there for you.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If you think you can profitably produce a book like the PHB and sell it for 9.95, go right ahead. The SRD is out there for you.



Savage Worlds, Explorer's Edition?


----------



## SSquirrel (Feb 23, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> *shrugs* everybody's got a different style.  I thought Grim & Gritty lowered the power curve too much.  I don't play D&D for "realism" I like the existing powercurve even at higher levels, I just mix things up in a more sandbox style.  My settings and campaigns tend to have a RIFTSish OOT danger level than a Middle Earth of DaleyDale style.
> 
> Agreed hordes of enemies rock, I just don't like the way 4e is redesigning monsters and if I don't have trouble with it now why switch?




At least it would be RIFTS using a better system* heh.  3E in the upper levels just got plain warped and the Epic Level Handbook was something I was glad a friend bought before I looked at it and decided not to.  If they can manage to make the math work so instead of a sweet spot of L5-13 or whatever and the rest of the game gets thrown off, that would be worth it IMO.  By all means tho, if the current system does everything you need run w/it 

It wasn't so much the realism factor of GnGR, it does add the "anyone has a chance of killing anyone" factor that some people really wish was in D&D and just plain isn't.  Rolemaster you can be a L10 guy in full plate, awesome gear and a L1 Orc w/a lucky top rolling set of dice could kill you w/one lucky as hell swing.  Some argue that it makes the game feel less heroic b/c anything could potentially kill you (even if it isn't very likely), and I can understand that, but it was also just a different idea at the time and something I found neat.  I was getting bored w/the core game and reading other systems like Arcana Unearthed (later Evolved) more.  

Anything that gives you a jolt in the arm and makes you want to roll up a character is a good thing IMO.


*For those playing at home, yes I know it is a RIFTish "feel" not actually RIFTS using D&D.


----------



## delericho (Feb 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Given that kids today have no trouble buying 50 dollar video games, I don't see it. A movie ticket, popcorn, and soda can easily come to 20 dollars -- for 2 hours entertainment. Spending nine dollars more to buy a book which can provide years of play? A no-brainer.




I have to agree with this. Kids will have no problem finding the $35 for the new PHB (or even $105 for the three core rulebooks). The major problem WotC will have selling the new edition to kids will be in making them _want_ it.

The thing is, that new $50 video game is that it is an instant gratification. Those $105 core rulebooks represent hours of reading, further hours of preparing an adventure, a bunch of time creating characters, and then they get to start playing. And a PnP RPG is not the same visceral experience as a video game.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 23, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Savage Worlds, Explorer's Edition?




Is that a full color, 230 page book?


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 23, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Is that a full color, 230 page book?




Savage World, Explorer Edition is a 160-page 6"x9" trade paperback full-color (haven't seen the interior, so I can't actually verify what full-color means in this case). However, it was written by a single person (which I find bad for game design, since a "daddy" has trouble seeing flaws in his "baby boy" that are readily apparent to other designers... I've learned this myself with systems I've written for video games), and I see no indication that it employed reputable, high quality professional artists. And then, of course, there's the lack of mainstream marketing and all that.

So, it sounds like the reason it sells for so much less is because it cost them way less to produce.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 24, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Savage World, Explorer Edition is a 160-page 6"x9" trade paperback full-color (haven't seen the interior, so I can't actually verify what full-color means in this case). *However, it was written by a single person (which I find bad for game design, since a "daddy" has trouble seeing flaws in his "baby boy" that are readily apparent to other designers... I've learned this myself with systems I've written for video games),* and I see no indication that it employed reputable, high quality professional artists. And then, of course, there's the lack of mainstream marketing and all that.
> 
> So, it sounds like the reason it sells for so much less is because it cost them way less to produce.




First let me say, way to slam a game without really having any facts about it.

Emphasis mine, where did you find this information, as I have found three "authors listed for Savage Worlds...Shane Lacy Hensley, John Hopler and Zeke Sparkes...but I could be wrong so I'm asking.  You realize this is a condensed version of the hardback.

Second question...what does mainstream marketing have to do with it, what roleplaying game (including D&D and White Wolf  is actually "mainstream nowadays?  D&D relies on word of mouth more than any "mainstream" marketing.

You haven't seen the inside, but "full color" may be something else...besides  "full color".  I'm not even understanding why this was stated.  It's like saying 3.5 is listed as hardcover...but as I haven't verified it personally hardcover may actually mean no cover at all.

The only thing I agree with are that it's production costs may have been less because of it's format...but again it doesn't get the type of discount WotC gets on print runs, so...even this may be a fallacy.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 24, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> First let me say, way to slam a game without really having any facts about it.




Slamming it would be "This game sucks



> Emphasis mine, where did you find this information, as I have found three "authors listed for Savage Worlds...Shane Lacy Hensley, John Hopler and Zeke Sparkes...but I could be wrong so I'm asking.  You realize this is a condensed version of the hardback.




Allow me to rephrase.

It had one designer: Shane Lacy Hensley.



> Second question...what does mainstream marketing have to do with it, what roleplaying game (including D&D and White Wolf  is actually "mainstream nowadays?  D&D relies on word of mouth more than any "mainstream" marketing.




It's a cost associated with producing a product. D&D spends mucho dinero on marketing, while this game does not.



> You haven't seen the inside, but "full color" may be something else...besides  "full color".  I'm not even understanding why this was stated.  It's like saying 3.5 is listed as hardcover...but as I haven't verified it personally hardcover may actually mean no cover at all.




I've seen books listed as full-color, and then they have a full color page thrown in occasionally with some artwork. I've seen books listed as full-color because they use a colored ink instead of simple black and white (so, instead, it's red and white, or blue and white).



> The only thing I agree with are that it's production costs may have been less because of it's format...but again it doesn't get the type of discount WotC gets on print runs, so...even this may be a fallacy.




I think it's production costs are less because WotC spends more money on development and production than pretty much everyone else in the industry.


----------

