Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

Hussar said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The Shaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Korgoth said:

Now, my group does employ good tactics. They use lots of flaming oil

Click to expand...

I don't regard use of flaming oil as good tactics. It's a rules exploit. The Pun-Pun of its day, though not as extreme.

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.

Aus_Snow said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Umbran said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Plane Sailing said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Doug McCrae said:

I don't regard use of flaming oil as good tactics. It's a rules exploit. The Pun-Pun of its day, though not as extreme.

Click to expand...

There's no serious comparison between flaming oil and Pun-Pun. That's ludicrous.

I mean, you're really comparing a 1st level Kobold that can transform himself into a god with an alchemical weapon that does 1d6 damage?

Hussar said:

Can you push players to role play by simply making combat so unappealing that they won't have a choice?

Click to expand...

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.