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.
Sorry if I jumped in there a bit quick, but the fact that you deliberately excluded 4e from the idea of higher lethality kinda led me to think that. There is an implication in your post that 4e leads to the opposite of "some combat even with good strategies to avoid pointless fights." which, I took to mean that 4e is nothing but a string of poor strategy and pointless fights.
Out of curiousity, why did you exclude 4e?
Well, you certainly read more into my post than was there, I think it is fair (and indeed, totally accurate) to say. Also, you accused me of 'edition warz' or whatever, whereas that is absolutely not where I was coming from.
What I said was what I meant. And what should also have been evident, but perhaps was not (to some), is that what was said reflects only my impressions, or assessment I suppose, based on what I've seen, read and heard.
I don't know from direct experience, as I haven't played (let alone run) 4e, and am not likely to. And if it turns out that I'm convinced that I'm wrong about that (apparent) aspect of 4e, I'll revise my assessment, without any fuss or complaint.
What it all boils down to is this: I don't actually have it in for 4e (or any other RPG) - I only judge each and every one that I come across, based (again) on what I see, hear and/or read*. And I'm fully aware that such judgements can't be other than subjective, of course. But I do try to give any RPG a fair go, believe it or not (and whether that is in fact believed, doesn't really concern me).
You seem to be pretty sure that 4e is not less deadly at low levels than every edition prior. Fair enough. At this stage, I disagree, because I haven't encountered any evidence to contradict the evidence to the contrary. So to speak. Anyway, I am not (and was not) stating or implying that this apparent difference is a negative thing (nor a positive one, as it happens).
Just one thing that springs to mind, by the way, is that 4e is meant to be 'all sweet spot', in a manner of speaking, so that PCs from go to woe play more like mid-level earlier play. Or something like that. To some extent, anyhow. There are other things too, but I'd have to dig around forums and other pages and stuff.
* Heh, or play, in *some* cases.
Last edited by Aus_Snow; 24th June 2009 at 11:45 AM..
Fair enough. Like I said, it was just strange to me that you would specifically include things like Pathfinder (which IIRC makes low level characters a fair bit more powerful), 3e (which has MUCH more powerful 1st-3rd level characters than earlier editions) and then deliberately exclude 4e as being significantly less lethal. I've read enough accounts here and other places which shows a pretty significant body count in 4e campaigns.
Granted, not the couple of hundred deaths you might see in very early D&D .
The problem I have with this idea that high lethality leads to better strategizing is that I'm not sure it bears out in play. I think that what it does lend itself to is things like taking 14 hunting dogs into dungeons with you. Or stampeding sheep through areas to clear traps. Or using Item spells on lit barrels of oil, strapping them to the aforementioned sheep and then watching them go boom!
Like I said earlier, it can lead to arms races between the players and the DM. The players do everything in their power to make sure that they will win every fight - squeeze every possible advantage out of the system and completely ignore role play or in game considerations.
__________________ 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.
Traveller is my example of this: combat is incredibly deadly and destructive at higher tech levels, so often the best way to approach a potential fight is to avoid it. That may involve straight running away, or it may mean using alternate means to handle the conflict.
The one time we played T20 Traveller, we didn't have any combats, and instead where just flying from planet to planet to buy and sell goods at good profit.
But I don't think we role-played more than in a combat heavy session of D&D.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I can't say that I've noticed a direct relationship between games with high lethality and roleplaying. In general when we've played a game with an assumed higher lethality, the players didn't really avoid fights anymore than in other games, but they did concentrate more on tactics and strategy.
One thing I have seen correlate almost directly is Experience Points. The minute you start playing a game that does not directly award XP for winning fights, the number of fights decreases to almost zero.
You seem to be pretty sure that 4e is not less deadly at low levels than every edition prior. Fair enough. At this stage, I disagree, because I haven't encountered any evidence to contradict the evidence to the contrary.
Without playing, you've come upon solid evidence that supports the opinion?
Kobold Hall, the introductory adventure in the DMG, is constructed such that it frequently smears parties across the cavern floor.
The DMG gives DMs some vague notions of what is apt to be an easy or difficult encounter, and gives the DM a framework for designing encounters. But, n the end, the difficulty of the enc0ounters is left to the DM.
I find it a bit mystifying that folks say that one edition is more or less lethal than another, when the lethality of all editions has always been in the DM's hands. If the game lacked human oversight, I could understand, but it doesn't.
If your game isn't lethal, it is because the DM doesn't make it so. That has been true since OD&D.
Without playing, you've come upon solid evidence that supports the opinion?
Kobold Hall, the introductory adventure in the DMG, is constructed such that it frequently smears parties across the cavern floor.
The DMG gives DMs some vague notions of what is apt to be an easy or difficult encounter, and gives the DM a framework for designing encounters. But, n the end, the difficulty of the enc0ounters is left to the DM.
I find it a bit mystifying that folks say that one edition is more or less lethal than another, when the lethality of all editions has always been in the DM's hands. If the game lacked human oversight, I could understand, but it doesn't.
If your game isn't lethal, it is because the DM doesn't make it so. That has been true since OD&D.
I would say the difficulty of encounters is completely in the DM's hands and edition/system neutral.
Lethality per the RAW of a given system is more dependent on the ruleset. For example, the DM decides how likely a given encounter is to drop a given number of PC's to 0 hp. How lethal that turns out to be depends on the rules being used.
I notice that lethal combat makes PCs more likely to seek alternative means of progressing... combat becomes a last resort rather than a first alternative (I saw this most clearly in a sci-fi game, but it probably applies all over the place).
I quite like this, although I recognise that it doesn't appeal to everyone.
This for me -- very well said Plane Sailing!
I, too, prefer games that tend to de-emphasize combat, and often the best way to do so is to make it potentially extremely deadly.
__________________ Jack, you have debauched my sloth.
Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?
I don't see role-playing and combat as opposites. Combat is another venue where role-playing occurs. My group does a lot of role-playing while hitting things, their character's quirks and personalities shining through the pretend mayhem.
Accepting that you are using 'role-playing' to mean something like 'non-violent problem solving', it's my experience that the particular game mechanics are less influential than player preference and DM rulings. In descending order of influence, it shakes out like this:
Players choose actions based on what they find enjoyable (hitting things, tricking things, having better logistics than things).
Players choose action based on what the DM/GM rewards (or deems possible).
Players choose actions based on what the system rewards.
edit: think about it this way, OD&D is widely regarded as one of the more lethal incarnations of D&D. Yet it gave rise to both a very cautious style of play and hack-and-slash gaming. This says to me that player preference is far more important than rules when it comes to how much or what kind of 'role-playing' a group engages in.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I agree. In D&D, combat is most of the roleplaying done IMO. If PCs start dying left and right however, it probably means the module's game design is too difficult for the players. Or the players are just roleplaying poorly, but I would tend to err on the side of the module being too difficult for the players.
Those GenCon open game listings require commensurate experience: beginner, intermediate, experts-only(!), and aren't to be laughed at. It takes real ability to roleplay well.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
I don't believe Gary intended it to be an alchemical weapon, rather he mistakenly allowed medieval lantern oil to burn like petrol. His model was probably the molotov cocktail, an anachronism. There is only one entry for oil in the 1e PHB, not two separate entries for alchemist's fire and normal oil, as there are in 3e. In 1e it does 2-12 points of damage on the first round and 1-6 on the second.
I say it's an exploit because no one would assume, without having read the DMG, that medieval lantern oil would be as effective a weapon as it is.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Nothing much to add at this point. I just wanted to say that this is enjoyable reading, and a good topic. Hussar, XP are coming your way!
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.
Lethality is lessened in low-level 4E the same way as for high-level characters in old D&D: by the ratio of hit points to damage. In old D&D, a typical hit does one die of damage and a character has (up to "name" level) as many dice of hit points as its level. 1d6 damage vs. 1d6 HP is 58.333% chance of a kill. In 4E, even 3d6+4 (e.g., a rogue "sneak attack") is 0% versus 23 HP.
An ancient red dragon's "immolate foe" power does only an average of 32 initially, +15 ongoing (save ends). (The dragon has 1,390 HP!) A fresh 1st-level fighter with 17 constitution (32 HP, 16 bloodied) survives the average immolation if (55% chance) the ongoing damage applies but once, and someone applies first aid or healing magic (or the encounter ends, allowing a "rest") before failure of 3 death saving throws.
In 1st ed. AD&D, the dragon does a minimum of 36 points and even an Unearthed Arcana barbarian has a maximum of 40 -- versus 24 for a ranger, or 14 for a fighter or paladin.
It's a bit harder to get killed in one hit in low-level 4E, unless it's "friendly fire" (PCs can pack a wallop!). Not knowing when to retreat can easily lead to a TPK, but that's a different matter. I think it might actually get more dangerous in the paragon and/or epic tier, but I'm not sure.
Touching again on the TPK potential in 4E, in my (perhaps unrepresentative) experience, players in a combat are like a cat up a tree. Heck, the possibility that an encounter with monsters could be anything but a slugging match seems not to cross their minds.
I guess that could reflect "training" in 3E scenarios, although what I've seen from Necromancer Games would seem unlikely to cultivate such rigidity. Goodman maybe; I don't recall anything from Wizards.
RPGA 4E events seem to encourage an "along for the ride" attitude, and the Association has been key to drawing into the game most of the players I have met.
A lot of 1E modules came (partly to get more return on development costs) from tournaments, and that may have helped pave the way for a wide shift to pretty linear scenarios. The early ones, though, tended also to be very deadly unless approached with the caution likewise applicable in a "proper" dungeon (roughly analogous to a modern war zone).
More than anything, I think assumptions as to what the game is "about" shape how players approach it. A trend in published scenarios, if they get used a lot, may weigh more heavily than material in the rule book. For instance, GDW and FASA published (if memory serves) a number of Traveller adventures focused on criminal or mercenary undertakings involving violence almost as a matter of course. I recall that some players who had a collection of those (which I did not) got the impression that Traveller was "about" that sort of thing.
On 1E flaming oil: I regard (as is my prerogative as DM) the "direct hit" damage as most unlikely to arise from use of "medieval Molotov" grenades. It takes a hard target to break a bottle; short of that, only pouring (or a very lucky toss at a hard ceiling) is going to drench enough.
Taking that out of the equation, flaming oil is largely reduced to a stratagem for discouraging pursuit -- as I think it ought to be.
(For Korgoth and others who might not know) DMG p. 64 has a "direct hit" do 2-12 points the first round, and another 1-6 the second. A splash burns for 1-3 segments, doing 1 point per segment. Leaping over a puddle of burning oil generally does no damage, but walking through or standing in such flames does 1-6 per round.
Vegetable or animal oils seem generally less volatile than kerosene, so I think the "explosion" effect of modern improvised weapons (on which I am no expert!) is probably not going to happen. Having experienced scalding from merely hot cooking oil, though, I can accept that getting soaked in archaic lamp oil and then set on fire could be as nasty as the DMG makes it -- at least considering how deadly so much else is in the game!
Last edited by Ariosto; 24th June 2009 at 10:24 PM..
Heck, the possibility that an encounter with monsters could be anything but a slugging match seems not to cross their minds.
That depends on the group, doesn't it? (regardless of edition). See my earlier point about original D&D giving rise to both the cautious, logistics-heavy play style and hack-and-slash gaming.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
The one time we played T20 Traveller, we didn't have any combats, and instead where just flying from planet to planet to buy and sell goods at good profit.
But I don't think we role-played more than in a combat heavy session of D&D.
Okay, but my point was specific to the experience of combat lethality in Traveller and its potential effects on roleplaying, not playing Traveller generally.
That said, I've played Traveller games where we jumped from system to system trading our wares, focused on system codes and trade tables with a bare minimum of roleplaying, and I've played Traveller games where we built complex webs of commerical contacts through schmoozing, bribery, and skullduggery that involved more roleplay and almost no trade table consulting at all.
Sometimes they were the same game, actually.
__________________ On weird fantasy: "The Otus/Elmore rule: When adding something new to the campaign, try and imagine how Erol Otus would depict it. If you can, that's far enough...it's a good idea. If you can picture a Larry Elmore version...it's far too mundane and boring, excise immediately." - Kellri, K&K Alehouse
That depends on the group, doesn't it? (regardless of edition). See my earlier point about original D&D giving rise to both the cautious, logistics-heavy play style and hack-and-slash gaming.
Maybe... but the comment that D&D is fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff comes up dishearteningly often in posts... and from 4e designers for that matter. I can't shake the feeling that sentiment is at the core of the game philosophy that shaped 4e and its ENWorld fan-base (I can't speak very much to other fan collectives outside of ENWorld since I don't frequent many other game boards). And it may be part of the reason 4e and I don't get along so much...
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Maybe... but the comment that D&D is fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff comes up dishearteningly often in posts... and from 4e designers for that matter. I can't shake the feeling that sentiment is at the core of the game philosophy that shaped 4e and its ENWorld fan-base (I can't speak very much to other fan collectives outside of ENWorld since I don't frequent many other game boards). And it may be part of the reason 4e and I don't get along so much...
Don't forget get xp!
D&D is about killing people and taking their stuff(and getting xp). You're basically playing it against the grain if you're not.
People tend to say that phrase and mean that it is all D&D is about, or that there is something wrong with killing people and taking their stuff(and getting xp). There isn't.
I play D&D to kill people and take their stuff. And I get xp for it.
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
