Where Has All the Magic Gone? - Page 9

Herschel · 14th December 2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malraux

So is rolling a d20 and adding numbers to it.

Who said they weren't? Although you could argue it as rolling a D20 and subtracting, depending on edition and calculation method.

Andor · 14th December 2008, 01:08 AM

To quote a recent Girl Genius "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.

If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period. Play a SF game, play a modern day game, play a historical game, play an alternate historical game where you explore the ramifications of a chinese expedition introducing horses and gunpowder to south america before the spainiards arrive.

Do not however whine that a fantasy game has magic in it, because that is the whole freaking point!

Gimby · 14th December 2008, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herschel

Andor wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't be playing anything. He was pointing out a basic, core concept in the game. If you like table top skirmish combat as your primary enjoyment then there are a number of better games. D&D Miniatures was a better option. There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be decent and whupping up on some baddies, nobody is saying there is. BUt if your emphasis is on tabletop skirmish combat, then there's one example of a more efficient option.

Its not neccesarily a player issue though, it can equally be a character one. If I'm playing Wacky McNutjob then I'll love to get a Rod of Wonder. If I'm playing Sgt Grimm, then I'm going to dump that unreliable junk as fast as possible and go for the +1 thats going to help me live through the next day.

The magic and wonder doesn't have to be in items - places, NPCs, plots can all provide that without needing random magic items. See how many threads there are about people playing low-magic campaigns or asking how to hack the game to make them work.

On top of that , while the random powers can be fun, they can also be very damaging to a campaign - theres plently of stories out there about how a Deck of Many Things derailed or destroyed a game.

Herschel · 14th December 2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimby

Its not neccesarily a player issue though, it can equally be a character one. If I'm playing Wacky McNutjob then I'll love to get a Rod of Wonder. If I'm playing Sgt Grimm, then I'm going to dump that unreliable junk as fast as possible and go for the +1 thats going to help me live through the next day.

The magic and wonder doesn't have to be in items - places, NPCs, plots can all provide that without needing random magic items. See how many threads there are about people playing low-magic campaigns or asking how to hack the game to make them work.

On top of that , while the random powers can be fun, they can also be very damaging to a campaign - theres plently of stories out there about how a Deck of Many Things derailed or destroyed a game.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your basic points, except the last one.

If you allow the deck, you had better be prepared for all the possible outcomes. If it derails a campaign, so be it. If things blow up too much, giving the last living character a wish with his draw that can be used to reverse the events by going back in time just a bit is a pretty easy solution if you really want to reverse it. Just let the players know they would get the exact same pulls if they tried to use it "again".

Or let him go recruit a new party of characters around him just like if the group narrowly avoided TPK.

The DM chose to leave it in/insert it and the characters chose to draw from it. You can also choose to charge that elder wyrm with your bard or play it safe. Both have their merits.

Jack7 · 14th December 2008, 03:05 AM

I hope ladies (assuming there are any in this thread) and gentlemen that this won't turn into anything more than a peculiarities argument (I like this, you don't, so you're a jerk). On the other hand I don't really see how folks can argue without disagreeing about content. (I can see how you do it without being disagreeable people, but not about what you're actually arguing about.)

That said I got no way to control this, and maybe it shouldn't be controlled, but then again, c'est la vie. I think people oughtta be tough enough to take a few insults in pursuit of their cause, it's just usually that's not necessary to get your point across if all you're arguing with is words. Instead of with bullets and knives, when it's kinda hard not to take it personal. But that's just me.

Quote:

So you have to like interesting magic items with a fantastic backstory now? Poor fellows that just wanted a +2 sword, but play interesting characters.

It don't necessarily have to be either/or Keefe. It could be that an interesting magical item enhances rather than replaces a character's own nature. Becomes an ally, part of his nature, lore, personality. As when men think of Arthur they think of Caliburn, or when men think of Roland they think of Durandal and his Horn. That is it doesn't have to be a man overshadowing his sword, or a sword overshadowing his man. there was a time when it was common for men to consider their swords, and items such as that as part of their nature, as symbolic of their own power. The Staff of Merlin, the Rod of Aaron, the Staff of Moses. You carried such items throughout your life and career. Sometimes they were passed on and sometimes they were so unique to you they couldn't be employed by anyone else, and so they were buried with you. That's definitely something I miss. In the game.

Magic in-game is becoming modernized to the point that people lose associations with what they possess, and instead everything about them is expendable, even their swords, staves, and most important heirlooms. There was a time when magical items were heirlooms, expressive of the nature of an individual, not disposable paper napkins you used and discarded later on. They stayed with you, adventured with you, became part of you. And that was magical, and others knew those things about you. Because they could plainly see it in what you carried. It was like a marque, a signature, a signet ring saying, "This is me." And when others saw what you carried they knew it was you and it was part of your legend. Part of your fame. It was part of your name.

Compare this: "I am Arthur, King of Britain, and here be Excalibur that I won from the ancient stone with my own hand."

With this: "I am Thaddeus and here is my +3 longsword that I bought at a discount! It was an upgrade from my old +2 short sword! When I get enough experience I'll sell this sword too and buy me a +4 Bastard! Huzzah!"

Something gets lost in the translation. Something too has been lost in the game over time in the rush to trade meaning for mechanics.

Quote:

I think another area ripe for interesting effects could be the rituals section. If you want a weird power that the PCs can use but that isn't a weapon or the like, why not make it a ritual scroll?

Maybe not even a scroll. Maybe rituals associated with magical items in strange or unusual ways. That would potentially open up a whole new field of magic/magical item usage.

Quote:

Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear enough. i am not telling my players to react. But you know how there are encounter setups that give players no choice? For example, if the PCs are clearly unable to handle the Trolls, i cannot set up an ambush where the PCs are attacked without warning and without a way to flee. That's gamemastering 101.

However, if the Trolls are a balanced encounter, then such an ambush can be set up.

That's certainly a valid enough point Harl, though I think you made an honest enough reply the first time. The modern game theory of "balance" does lead one to imagine that it really is the duty of the DM, or the writer, to "balance things out." I suspect it is as much subconscious and reflexive an impulse, as a considered and well-reasoned idea.

If you're telling me that DMs and module writers should not place characters in absolutely impossible situations, that this is somehow unfair, then I agree with you. (Though such truly absolutely impossible situations are rather rare, even in real life.) I'm with you. The game wouldn't last long and neither would the characters if you set out to give them truly impossible fights. However I suspect that is not what is really being implied by balance. That balance really implies something insidious (in game terms), almost subconscious, about the true nature of heroism. And if that's true then this is my opinion of balance for the sake of balance - To Hell With Balance

Let me illustrate exactly what I mean by a couple of examples.

Example One: You're a US Marshal. One day you are off-duty and walking in a store parking lot and you see an agitated man taking swings at customers. You walk over and tell the man to calm himself or you'll run him in, but he's really topped-off and decides he'll take a swing at you. You go at it with him. He's about your size, your weight, your age, your strength. He ain't a great fighter, but he ain't bad either. You trade up blows for awhile, you have the advantage of experience and calmness, he has the advantage for fury and persistence. Eventually you wear each other down but you're last man standing and you take him into custody, hand him over to a beat cop, and go home to shower off and tend your bruises. The next day your buddies come up to you at the office and say, "Yeah, I hear it wasn't much but then again you're not as young as you used to be." They pick at your fat lip and the cut over your eye, you laugh, they laugh, everybody goes back to work. And you move on to the next case.

Example Two: You're a US Marshal. One day when you are off duty and walking through a parking lot you see a suspicious looking guy trying to manhandle a woman and her little girl into a car. You sprint over. When you get there you realize the suspect is a guy you know of by reputation and record. He's already been convicted for three murders, one for beating a kid to death, another for strangulation murder. He's on the loose, probably escaped. Known car-jacker. He's big, he's tough, he's a former gangmember, and even his gang was afraid of him. And they were Mexican Mafia. You know he'll kill you if he can and kidnap the woman and kid as hostages if necessary. You're not packing. He may be. You hit him hard in the mouth and tell the gals to run. They do. He jumps on top of you and starts stomping the living hell out of you. You fight back. It looks bad. He's probably cracked a rib or two of yours already. You're having trouble seeing through your own blood. You're rolling dizzy through the debris of what the lady bought in the store. He weighs a lot more than you and he's using it to advantage. He's on top punching down and his arms are like hydraulic pistons. You think any minute you'll go under and he'll finish you. You rifle through the debris with your free hand and find a screwdriver the lady just bought. You shank it through his ribs and he screams and rolls off you. While he's pulling it out (in another second and he's got the weapon) you wipe your eyes clean, find a hammer (Thank God the woman was shopping for her husband) in the bag and whack the guy hard in the head. You figure you probably split his skull but he's still moving, and yelling, and cursing. So you hit him twice more til he don't move anymore. Then you pull out your cell phone, punch in 911 and hope they get there before he wakes up and have to do it all over again.

You're hospitalized for three days, and the thug for a week. The guys from the office come to vast you in your room and although they give you hell about how stupid and lucky you are, you know what happened, and they know what happened. You lost a tooth in the parking lot too, and so they bring you a fake gold one as a joke. When you laugh or breathe it hurts, and so the guys sneak a beer into to ya.

Now, all things being equal, you could probably describe the first fight in a lot for ways. Doing your job, a moment of have to, but it was pretty Even-Steven all the way. "A Balanced Fight." But neither you, nor anyone you know would really consider it heroic. It was worth a joke or two, a slap on the back, and a nick-name like "punch-drunk."

But the second fight. The totally unbalanced, he meant to kill you with his bare hands for fun, if you hadn't of interfered he would have raped and killed those two girls, you're lucky to be alive fight. You're too modest to admit it but you know, deep down inside, what almost happened, and so do your buddies.

They wanna take you out to eat and for beers and get the whole story, what you remember of it anyways - it happened so fast and yet took so eternally long that you really aren't sure what exactly went down. But everybody knows one thing. There was no balance, it should have been a one-way fight with at least one corpse, yours. But you did it anyways. And by God you won. And people who know about it whisper about it behind your back. They give you nicknames. The Hammer, the Fool, the Toughest SOB I ever saw.

And that my friend is the difference between heroism and just doing your job. The difference between real danger and risk, and the "balanced encounter." Something you know inside yourself. That when blood hits the ground, your blood, against almost impossible odds, against guys a lot bigger and meaner and seemingly more lethal than you are, you got it where it counts. You ain't afraid of the monster, not anytime, not anywhere. Oh, you don't make a joke of it, not inside your own heart. But in the end, you just ain't afraid.

And I know it's just a game, and it's just imagination. But perhaps it's also training for certain ideals in real life. For putting inside of your own head, and your own heart, and your own soul, the difference between a fair fight, and a truly heroic one. And I have a hard time believing that you grow real heroes from "seeds of balance." Just like I have a hard time believing you grow magic from numbers and arithmetrical mechanics. So yeah, it's just a game. But then again principles are just principles. Unless they really mean something when you really have to prove it.

I guess what I'm saying is that there are few heroic magical items anymore. Few life-time or legacy magical items anymore. Few mysterious and truly magical items anymore. Just as their are few heroes. And I think it is because, as a lot of others have pointed out, the Age of the Hero and the Age of the Heroic Magical Item is over (for the moment at least) in-game. And the real reason is, I suspect and as others have also pointed out, is because we have traded up (or is it down, or is it out, or is it down-n-out) history, and meaning, and mystery, and danger and risk, and wonder, and magic, for things like mechanics (there is nothing wrong with mechanics, everything has to work some way - but in what way - that's the question), and control, and a sort of artificial semblance of power, and mathematics, and balance.

Well folks I've been out working in the cold for most of the day.
I'm kinda beat down and numb.

Carry on fellas. It's been fun reading what you guys have been selling.
Night all.

Felon · 14th December 2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herschel

Andor wasn't telling anyone they shouldn't be playing anything.

Just there's anyone still lingering under a misconception, let's go straight to the horse's mouth:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andor

To quote a recent Girl Genius "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.

If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period. Play a SF game, play a modern day game, play a historical game, play an alternate historical game where you explore the ramifications of a chinese expedition introducing horses and gunpowder to south america before the spainiards arrive.

Do not however whine that a fantasy game has magic in it, because that is the whole freaking point!

Well, Andor, that's your two cents. Now remind yourself that you're just one of a legion of nonentities posting in these forums, and attaching an overinflated sense of worth to your words doesn't do much to elevate you from the pack.

Now back to Herschel:

Quote:

If you like table top skirmish combat as your primary enjoyment then there are a number of better games. D&D Miniatures was a better option. There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be decent and whupping up on some baddies, nobody is saying there is. BUt if your emphasis is on tabletop skirmish combat, then there's one example of a more efficient option.

For some, you'd be right. For others, not so much. Others may like D&D for the one thing that really makes it stand out from other tabletop RPG's: its shameless focus on loot. A lot of folks like D&D because loot emphasizes a nice clear-cut set of incentives and rewards.

And that's just one reason to prefer D&D that has zip to do with wonder. That you think it makes it sense to indict other reasons to play D&D as "inefficient" or "impractical" rings odd. You'd do better to accept that personal preferences aren't a simple exercise in logic as to what would best suit them; they like what they like.

Fifth Element · 14th December 2008, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andor

If there is no wonder, and no mystery it isn't magic, it's science with newts and circles instead of cogs and circuits. If I want to play with science I don't need an RPG, I have a garage and a soldering iron.

So if you have a system/setting where wizards have developed magic into a science, then that game cannot be fantasy? Why is magic the only source of mystery?

No one is arguing they don't want magic in their game at all, that's a strawman. The discussion originated with a "sense of wonder" type of argument, nothing to do with the presence or lack of working magic.

Raven Crowking · 14th December 2008, 05:04 AM

How odd is the statement Andor made (If you don't want magic in your game, you shouldn't be playing a fantasy RPG. Period.) if you accept that the presence of magic is the defining quality that makes an RPG a "fantasy" RPG? I personally see this is no different than "If you don't want X in your game, you shouldn't be playing an X RPG. Period." IOW, it is a statement that relies on tautalogical definition, and is therefore inherently true.

RC

jasin · 14th December 2008, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack7

Example One: You're a US Marshal.

Example Two: You're a US Marshal.

So in the actual game, how do you run #2?

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.

Andor · 14th December 2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifth Element

So if you have a system/setting where wizards have developed magic into a science, then that game cannot be fantasy? Why is magic the only source of mystery?

No one is arguing they don't want magic in their game at all, that's a strawman. The discussion originated with a "sense of wonder" type of argument, nothing to do with the presence or lack of working magic.

Sure it could, from our perspective, because their science is not our science and so seems fantastical. We have sense of wonder as we explore the unfamiliar. However a (magician, technician, scientist?) scientologist from that world would not consider an RPG set in his own world a fantasy game anymore than we would consider an RPG set up around the adventures of 19th centry botanists exploring Africa to be a fantasy game. Conversely they might consider d20 Modern a fantasy game and have long boring arguements on the ethernet about what an engineer could really do.

BTW since we seem to have entered the semantics phase here let's have a peek at the word fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Spoiler:

By the majority of those definitions any RPG is a fantasy. So obviously 'a flight of fancy' is too imprecise since we wish to differentiate between 3e and d20 modern as belonging to different genres.

So to pick a few more precise definitions:

Literature. an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters.

Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.

So I'm going to pick out two words as being key to the definition of a fantasy RPG. Supernatural and Unnatural. If the nature of the game world includes elements nature does not allow in ours then I call those fantastic elements. If some of them comprise the focus of the game then that is a fantasy RPG. Note that this extremely broad definition includes both Call of Cuthulu and Superhero RPGs along with the more popcorn SF games.

Now the name of the game we are disussing is Dungeons and Dragons. Dragons are a fantastical element. They are right there in the bloody name of the game. D&D is a fantasy game. If you don't want fantastical elements in your game then for the love of god don't play a fantasy game! There are dozens of non-fantasy games out there and there are plenty of people here and elsewhere that can help you find the one that suits you.

Does anyone have a serious counter-argument beyond some kneejerk "Don't tell me how to play man!" blather?

**Xath** · 14th December 2008, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herschel

I'm surprised at the number of obtuse martyrs on here. Try reading it again without the victim card. Either that or I can get my pliers and help you off the cross.

And you're done. I'll advise you to go back and read the rules of ENworld before posting anything else. You will no longer be able to post in this thread.

To everyone else, I'll remind you of ENworld's civility rules. If you can't express your opinions without insulting others, don't express them.

- Xath

Gimby · 14th December 2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andor

Does anyone have a serious counter-argument beyond some kneejerk "Don't tell me how to play man!" blather?

Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements? Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third. Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.

In this edition the fantastical elements are focused on the internal abilities of the characters themselves rather than their magic toys. Even then, there are a decent number of highly fantastical items that seem to be being ignored - even something as humble as the Everlasting Provisions (level 4, 840gp) is fantasitcal enough for something similar to be the focus of several Brothers Grimm tales.

There are very few people asking for the complete removal of fantastical elements, but there does reach a stage where some people feel that what they are getting isn't fantastical, its gonzo. That line will be in a different place for everyone, its just it seems to have been drawn a little lower this time out.

One side point:

Quote:

Compare this: "I am Arthur, King of Britain, and here be Excalibur that I won from the ancient stone with my own hand."

With this: "I am Thaddeus and here is my +3 longsword that I bought at a discount! It was an upgrade from my old +2 short sword! When I get enough experience I'll sell this sword too and buy me a +4 Bastard! Huzzah!"

It should be noted that the second is precisely what Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser do - the names for their weapons stay the same but the actual object changes on a frequent basis.

Jack7 · 14th December 2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players. That's something that keeps getting missed.

But as to whether or not a fella, or a team, becomes a mere set of statistics, that depends upon them. Not you. How clever, tough, and creative they are. You've got to let your players grow up, take real risks, be real heroes. The DM can't plot out heroism on a graph, and just because a player chooses a Paragon path or an Epic destiny doesn't mean there's anything epic about him, or that he'll ever do one truly heroic thing in his life. It's how a man behaves in the heat of the fire, not how he behaves in the balanced and comforting waters of the hot springs that makes the difference between a hero and a guy sporting a longknife and a funny name.

And of course not every fight is heroic. As I said. Sometimes you're just doing your job. But let them fight the dragon too, the real monster. The thing they know can kill them, the thing that will kill them unless they do their very, very best. How sad, that even in a game, where little is really risked (unless you count the ideals that men hold most true in their own hearts) the idea must be held in the back of the mind, "you know, if it weren't for the statistics, I'd have been a real hero?" Out of the womb of statistics, how many people ever grow a hero? Maybe, just maybe, you don't grow a hero by following the odds, maybe, just maybe, you grow a hero by forgetting the odds.

But as to whether they can do it, and they can if they really try, they employ techniques that assure they do as much as they can the right way, and assure the enemy makes as many mistakes as they can encourage him to make in the meantime. They don't just fight hard, and valiantly, and with determination. They also fight with cleverness, craftily, and with purpose. Anything can be killed if you go about it the right way. Including the idea that the fight must be fair, just because it seems impossible.

What I'm saying is that even in a game you can't grow real heroes out artificial mechanics and pre-plotted career paths. Just like you can't grow magic out of the number of pluses and minuses you employ.

You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.

Be that kind of fellow and sooner or later you'll become heroic. Be concerned about the odds and the balance and and whether you're man enough for the risk and you'll end up distinguished merely by your statistical limitations.

FireLance · 14th December 2008, 02:32 PM

I think the two biggest misconceptions about balance (with repsect to PCs vs encounters, anyway) are:
1. The PCs always win a balanced encounter.
2. The PCs always have balanced encounters.

The PCs may be likely to win a balanced encounter, but as with any game of skill and chance, the players may make tactical mistakes and the dice may not always go their way. Even if the PCs have a 90% chance of winning a "balanced" encounter and only ever fight "balanced" encounters, that means about one in ten encounters will end in defeat.

Furthermore, whether or not the PCs will have balanced encounters is entirely up to the DM in a non-sandbox game. In addition, encounter difficulty is not a binary "balanced"/"unbalanced" switch. There is a continuum of encounter difficulty, from encounters that the PCs are almost certain to win, to encounters where they have an better than average chance of victory, to encounters which could go either way, to encounters that the PCs would do well to run away as fast and as far as they can.

Encounter balance is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasin

So in the actual game, how do you run #2?

Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.

Quote:

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.

From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what makes them heroes.

However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten.

In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose.

Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the actual chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.

As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.

FireLance · 14th December 2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack7

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players. That's something that keeps getting missed.

I'll refine this slightly based on my gaming philosophy: In a non-sandbox game, it's the job of the DM to present the players with challenges that they have a decent chance of overcoming. It is the job of the players to actually beat them.

A challenge is not necessarily a combat encounter, though. The PCs may encounter creatures and NPCs that they have no realistic chance of beating in combat. In such cases, part of the challenge may be for the players to realize that they are outclassed (assuming they were attacked, or were silly enough to initiate hostilities in the first place), and the remainder may be for the players to negotiate, run, or otherwise get themselves out of the situation.

In addition, a challenge, even a "balanced" challenge, does not need to be easy. I expect my players to fight cleverly when in battle, and to use their intelligence, creativity and imagination in non-combat challenges. As a DM, I like to use opponents clever and ruthless enough to exploit any and every tactical error they make.

Quote:

You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.

This I agree with 100%. The numbers are there just to make sure that the PCs have a reasonable chance of success - if they do the right things.

jasin · 14th December 2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack7

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players.

To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?

As much as it's a central conceit of the game to pretend otherwise, D&D is rigged in the PCs' favour, either through statistics or through fudging. It's not something you want on the surface of the players minds because it detracts from the experience, but when talking game design, it's denial to pretend that the PCs should (or can!) be expected to face unfavourable odds and win with regularity.

All the rousing speeches about forgetting the odds and fighting for what's right and growing out your fears don't change the fact that if you need 20 on a d20 to defeat the villain, the villain defeats you in 19 games out of 20.

Naturally, things like clever tactics, teamwork, equipment all affect the odds, but if we're talking game design, they should already be accounted for. If you need a 20, but have +2 from flanking, +5 from a magic sword, +2 from your ally aiding you, and +4 from using your Defeat Villain 1/day ability, that's actually called "needing a 7", and it's not heroically going forward in face of overwhelming odds.

jasin · 14th December 2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireLance

Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.

So you have 5 Nth-level PCs fighting five 5 (N+2)th-level villains and think "wow, these guys are really outclassed!" and they still manage to win.

But this is because 4E, using different notations for PCs and monsters, can nicely camouflage what the numbers really mean. And what they really mean is not much different from 3E, where a "hard encounter" was actually a reasonably fair fight: EL = level + 4, facing an equal number of equally strong folks.

Similarly, in 4E encounter level = party level doesn't mean "this is an even match". It means "this is an appropriate encounter, which means the monsters are significantly outclassed". Harder encounters just mean the monsters are less outclassed than usual.

Of course, you already knew that.

Quote:

From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what makes them heroes.

However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten.

In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose.

Exactly.

Quote:

Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the actual chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.

Exactly.

Quote:

As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.

And again, exactly.

Andor · 14th December 2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gimby

Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements? Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third. Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.

True. But that's more a matter of genre and suspension of disbelief. D&D has always tended towards the "Throw the Encyclopeadia of Mythology into the blender and hit frappe." end of the spectum but there is plenty of wiggle room. I do think that if on seeing an Apparatus of Kaliwash the D&D players reaction should be "Cool!" not "Wouldn't it have been more efficient to model a magical mecha submarine on a Mantis Shrimp?"

Jack7 · 14th December 2008, 08:45 PM

Quote:

To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?

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, 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.

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.

malraux · 14th December 2008, 09:13 PM

Personally, when I want a game in which everything is mystical, magical, and near incomprehensible, where the heroes both give of themselves and have no idea if they will succeed, and statistics and numbers are of little comfort to the player, I play Cthulhu.