General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between a Hero and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.
No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.
But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.
I didn't see anywhere that jasin was implying that such detailed, mathematical analysis is a desired approach to play.
I think it's more like this: a firefighter reasonably fits the image of a hero... going into dangerous situations to aid others. And, much like a D&D adventurer, he does it on a regular basis. However, do you think they do so without rigorous training, adequate preparation and taking every precaution they can to minimize the risk to themselves even as they enter a burning building? Will they normally do things where the odds don't favor them? Of course not. Does this make them less heroic? I think not.
So even in real life, heroes will do things to try and make sure the odds are in their favor as much as possible.
Similarly, as PCs face danger on a routine basis, they of course will do things which minimize risk and perform "manipulations of probability" by doing things which shift the dice roll in their favor. Just the basic knowledge each player has that each +1 gives you a 5% better chance to succeed and trying to get those bonuses doesn't mean they're "carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude."
Just like the heroes of fiction will try to have better equipment, keep their skills honed and exercise beneficial tactical maneuvers in combat, so do D&D players. It's just that the fact that it's a game means there's math involved to reflect those things the heroes of fiction do.
However, with heroes of fiction, there is no real risk! They can succeed at amazing and impossible things because the author has already predetermined that they will do so. They cannot fail unless the author wants them to.
This is not true in a D&D game, which is co-authored by DM and players, because it is a game, which is dependent on the roll of a die to determine the outcome of actions, and through cumulative action results, an entire challenge. You can't expect PCs to "act like heroes" and continually take on situations where the odds are against them, because, unlike heroes of fiction, the statistical odds are actually against them. So they won't end up heroes, they'll just end up dead. No amount of florid prose regarding what heroism is "really" about will change that.
So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between a Hero and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.
However, in the context of the game, fortune does not favour the bold. You can be as bold as you like and it won't make your dice roll higher. You can make the game favour the bold through fiat or by inbuilt bonusses if you like, but these can be looked at statistically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack7
No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.
But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.
Here, I think we are getting to the heart of your issue. There is a clear difference between the risk as perceived by the player and that perceived by the character. The character is willing to stride into the jaws of hell armed only with their wits and their trusty blade. The player on the other hand, is aware of the exact capabilities of the character and can make the kind of cost/benefit analysis that you describe. The character can do things which are risky and unlikely in context of the gameworld, which are reliable in terms of the rules mechanics.
An example of this would be using Wushu on the US Marshal example earlier in the thread - depending on how the encounter is set up, its possible that in either case the risk of actual failure is zero. However, it is possible in the context of the game rules to narrate either of those outcomes, depending on the desires of the players. Does that stop the second case being heroic, even though the narrative generated is exactly the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack7
I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)
But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.
Indeed, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that characters should be timidly edging their way along that tightrope. Characters should (have the choice to, if appropriate to their characterisation) be bold and brave. Players on the other hand, may like not having to continually having to roll up new characters because the dice do not favour the bold.
So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.
I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between a Hero and a calculator.
And I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between the mindset of a hero, and the mindset of a designer of a framework which is to rely on randomization and expected to produce stories which we characterize as heroic.
Quote:
Because Fortune favors the Bold,
I don't think that adage is true in the sense in which you think it's true.
Quote:
but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.
You're starting to sound like Sphinx from Mystery Men.
Quote:
No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds.
No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.
Quote:
But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.
You're starting to sound like... well, pretty much anyone from Vance.
Quote:
I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)
I, on the other hand, have played in games where the odds were genuinely against the PCs and there was no fudging. Some of it has been fun, and there were even rare moments of genuine heroism, but mostly we've written up something like the Assassin Who Fell Down the Stairs and Was Paralyzed For Life, the Monk Who Couldn't Punch Through Plate Armour, the Battle-Priest Who Tripped On His Own Chainmail, and the Few Good Men Who Got Eaten By a Random Encounter Giant Slug.
Consistently going against the odds results in consistent failure, and consistent failure isn't what's associated in most people's minds with heroism. It's associated with lack of wisdom and lack of competence.
I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.
Oh, absolutely. And being able to determine if the odds are against them either relies on players being familiar enough with the statistics of the threat to decide it's out of their league or some narrative clues from the DM that indicate they might want to reconsider charging in.
Having encounters that the PCs have to figure out in the middle of combat that they're in over their heads (in the instance where the DM knew this going in) aren't cool to me, though. Usually a PC has to go down for that understanding to sink in, and might not be recoverable if the rest of the group runs. Also, as a game, combat is more fun than running away, so often players will continue to fight even when they shouldn't.
There's a few reasons for this. Again, unless the DM is giving clues that they are actually losing, they may not realize they are since they have no idea what the opponents' hit points or unused capabilities are. They may also not relish the idea of having to do a tough fight over again. And there's the psychological concept of "sunk cost", where one is reluctant to let go of an endeavor that they've already expended resources on. And, since it is a game, many times players, especially newer ones, may not realize that a situation where they have to run away from combat would ever come up unless the DM has set that expectation before hand.
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
I die a little every time some fanboy quotes this when you tell him "That plan will never work. The odds are stacked against you." It's especially appalling when they say it playing poker, only to lose big... which is practically inevitable whenever you say that but are not Han Solo.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
In fiction, something that has a million to one chance of success will always succeed. This is because everything is determined by the writer. Hot blood and courage can alter the laws of physics and the heroes can win even with 0% chance of success. Trying to apply this to real life games where random chance actually means something and You Fail Statistics Forever.
Q wrote an excellent article that listed what was available (i.e., what was in the module), but it didn't provide anything in the way of research re: how "available" the treasure actually was (i.e., what was required to actually get the listed treasure).
I offered some very specific guidelines about what would demonstrate me wrong. Time required to search is extremely simple to determine.
It isn't about who "played the game right".
RC
This is actually false:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quasqueton
Originally Posted by Quasqueton
I’ve read this assertion before, but I haven’t seen this in the adventure modules I’ve gone through. The vast majority of treasure is not hidden. And that treasure that is hidden, is not much, and only rarely “ridiculously” or “devilishly” (as someone else said) well hidden.
The Moathouse's "hidden" treasure:
1- in the belly of a giant frog = a 100gp gem
2- "the brigands have buried a chest. . . Three turns of digging" = 265gp value, +1 arrows (x4)
3- "in the litter of its nesting" = 850gp value
4- In a lone wall cresset, a "nondescript torch stub is a silver baton" = 30gp value
5- "[The giant lizard] has previously swallowed a shield +1, easily found if appropriate actions are taken after the battle." = +1 shield
6- "hidden behind a loose stone" = 500gp value
7- "intermixed with the old carpeting and rags of [the ogre's] bedding" = elven cloak
8- in a pool of water, under a skull = a pin worth a total of 2,000gp
9- in the "mess" of a ghoul nest = 40gp value, 1 potion, 1 scroll
10- "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber = 15,000gp piece of jewelry [Is this actually "hidden", in the context of this discussion? Just in a cabinet.]
Total of 3,785 gp value (out of 30,938gp) not immediately or obviously discoverable. Plus a 15,000gp piece of jewelry "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber, which "If seriously threatened, Lareth will offer all his non-magical treasures---jewelry, coins, and all else---as ransom for his life."
The myth that treasure was well hidden has been well and truly disproved already. TEN PERCENT of the treasure is not readily available. One has to wonder at Raven Crowking's assertion that his players regularly only find 25 % of the treasure in an adventure.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
The myth that treasure was well hidden has been well and truly disproved already. TEN PERCENT of the treasure is not readily available. One has to wonder at Raven Crowking's assertion that his players regularly only find 25 % of the treasure in an adventure.
Disproved... for the TOEE moathouse anyway.
But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
In fiction, something that has a million to one chance of success will always succeed.[/url].
Terry Pratchett has a bit of fun with this.
Quote:
"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo
In the TV show Psych, the lead character quotes Wesley Snipes from Passenger 57 when he says "Always bet on black!" (as part of a pithy exchange about odds and roulette, in an analogy about the hostage situation).
In Psych, the character takes this literally, and bets his detective agency's entire fee for a particular case on one spin of the roulette wheel. Oddly enough, black is not where the ball landed.
But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.
Lol... never underestimate player creativity. I think it was at the end of one of the Giants adventures that my party was bound and determined to haul off every single copper piece at the end. Stacked, levitating spell casters with rings of Tenser's Floating Disks around them teleported the whole shebang outta there. We might have used a couple of other spells too, but we did it.
Otherwise, just take the higher value coins and one still came away with quite a bit.
For the most part, my own personal recollection from adventures I've read/run was pretty much the same. 1E didn't give me the impression that there was some standard for how much treasure was suppose to be difficult to find. Plus, modules were written by a variety of different authors, who probably did their treasure placement differently.
If there was suppose to be a standard regarding how much treasure should be put behind secret doors or in devilishly designed hidden compartments, don't you think the 1E DMG would have had some indication on what that percentage would have been so DMs could place treasure accordingly in their own adventures? Were the early edition rules really that opaque that we have to do a thorough statistical analysis of these published adventures to reveal the Word of Gygax, like some get-rich-quick Bible Code of D&D? Yeah, you'll probably find a pattern, but in all likelihood it's meaningless in and of itself.
IIRC, there was pretty much just treasure type by monster to roll up and then left to the DM to decide where to place it. That was about it. This lack of guidance about treasure placement was what often lead to Monty Haul campaigns in games of yore.
__________________ "Sometimes we buy books because we think we're buying the time to read them." - Warren Zevon
But let's not forget that PCs often don't have horses with wagons adventuring with them and that it used to be 10 coins to the pound. PCs often didn't come away with the full amount of loot... because they couldn't carry it.
The moathouse, IIRC, is less than a days journey from town. How hard would it be to kill everything, and then take a couple of days hauling loot back? Let's not forget, we're talking 6-9 pc's, plus henchmen, hirelings and sundry other hangers on. And, while 10 coins might be 1 pound, most of the big treasure is in gems or jewelry.
People can go on and on about how treasure was hidden, how the game forced you to leave treasure behind and all that, but, at the end of the day, all we have is your word on that. The modules don't support this interpretation, actual gameplay by a number of gamers (NOT all, I do NOT mean that this is universal) doesn't support that. The idea that players would miss 75% of the treasure in a module is patently ludicrous IMO.
But, besides all this, there is still the fallacy of rarity being played out here. That just because magic is rare, it's special. That's not what makes a magic item special. No matter how rare magic is, a +1 sword will NEVER be special on its own. Magic items as well as anything else in the campaign becomes special because the PLAYERS make it so. I can come up with the most eloquently written, fantastic backstory for the item that you can possibly imagine, but, until such time as the players decide that Item X is cool, it's just not.
And no amount of rules can change that.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I'd like to see the actual analysis that disproves this.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I die a little every time some fanboy quotes this when you tell him "That plan will never work. The odds are stacked against you." It's especially appalling when they say it playing poker, only to lose big... which is practically inevitable whenever you say that but are not Han Solo.
Said in response to the ubiquitous Han Solo quote "Never tell me the odds."
I'd assume that the "real" Han Solo (the one who shot Greedo first, when he tried to shakedown Han) knows the odds at poker rather precisely, but says "Don't tell me the odds," a lot to get his opponent to think Han is bluffing when he is actually not.
I'd like to see the actual analysis that disproves this.
RC
Oh, bloody hell, someone quote my original post so this guy can see the bloody link since he cannot seem to find it himself, DESPITE trying to quote Quasqueton in the first place.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
IIRC, there was pretty much just treasure type by monster to roll up and then left to the DM to decide where to place it. That was about it. This lack of guidance about treasure placement was what often lead to Monty Haul campaigns in games of yore.
I think there's quite a bit of guidance. 1E DMG has an entire section on "Placement of Monetary Treasure". The Appendix A random dungeon tables basically have every treasure either trapped (1-8 on d20) or hidden (9-20 on d20) -- starting with invisibility and working up from there.
1E DMG p. 92:
Quote:
There will be much there, but even the cleverest of players will be more than hard put to figure out a way to garner the bulk of it after driving off, subduing, or slaying the treasure's guardian.
OD&D Vol. 3 p. 6-8:
Quote:
Naturally, the more important treasures will consist of various magical items and large amounts of wealth in the form of gems and jewelry. Once these have been secreted in out-of-the-way locations, a random distribution using a six-sided die can be made as follows...
Unguarded Treasures should be invisible, hidden behind a secret door or under the floor, locked in hard-to-open strong boxes with poison needles or deadly gas released when they are opened. (There are many variants of the above possible, and many other types of protection which can be devised.)
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
The moathouse, IIRC, is less than a days journey from town. How hard would it be to kill everything, and then take a couple of days hauling loot back? Let's not forget, we're talking 6-9 pc's, plus henchmen, hirelings and sundry other hangers on. And, while 10 coins might be 1 pound, most of the big treasure is in gems or jewelry.
People can go on and on about how treasure was hidden, how the game forced you to leave treasure behind and all that, but, at the end of the day, all we have is your word on that. The modules don't support this interpretation, actual gameplay by a number of gamers (NOT all, I do NOT mean that this is universal) doesn't support that. The idea that players would miss 75% of the treasure in a module is patently ludicrous IMO.
Of course, the moathouse part of T1-4 is for low level characters. Less likelihood of lots of henchmen and hangers on. Plus, the Temple is a dynamic environment, recruits keep coming in. It's not unreasonable to think that some actually appear a the moathouse as well, leading to potential competition in looting.
Shifting to other adventures. Try hauling a lot of treasure out of the Pomarj in the A series while surrounded by hostile humanoid tribes. Or out of the Hellfurnaces in G3 (where a substantial amount of the treasure is, in fact, hidden in a secret and easily defended cache). Or the underground shrine of the Kuo-toa. Not all adventuring sites are as easily accessed as the T1 moathouse. And though a lot of value was tied up in gems and jewelry, for other objects of value (particularly magical armors), weight and bulk become significant factors. Some objects d'art may be worth more per pound than the coins, but unless the DM has been extremely up front about value, they are still often the first to be weeded out due to their bulk.
Tracking the value of treasure out of 1e modules, in practice, is a substantially different situation than simply recording them out of the adventures which assumes perfect recovery.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
My practical experience with D&D (1e-4e) is that a lot of magical treasure winds up in the hands of PC's.
My practical experience with 1e is that there is a dichotomy between the treasure guidelines in the DMG and the sheer amount of enchanted bling found in the popular published modules (including the pre-generated character's gear).
My practical experience with D&D (1e-4e) is that DM's want enchanted bling in the players hands. While some DM's pride themselves on stinginess when it comes to magic items (or choose to focus on the in-play challenges involved in locating said items), the majority like their players armed with wahoo. Frankly, players using a lot of wahoo is one D&D's defining characteristics (though some choose to play otherwise).
My practical experience with comparing characters that enjoy plot-immunity (ie Luke Skywalker, Bilbo Baggins) with those that don't (insert PC name here) is that they're a considerable waste of time. Call it the "Luke was a Commoner Fallacy".
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
