Dragon Editorial: Fearless

[Ipissimus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

The article in question makes me sad. Really.

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

You believe this?

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

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

 

[Wormwood]

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

No, not the end.

If you read the article, you'll see that the author is primarily talking about drastically unfun attributes of previous editions such as save or die and level drains. Courage has nothing to do with going off to play your PSP because your character rolled a 1 on a poison needle trap.

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

 

[Derren]

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

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

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

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

 

[JLXC]

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

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

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

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ipissimus]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lord Zack]

Cowards? It's a fricking game!

 

[el-remmen]

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

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

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

 

[Wormwood]

Cowards? It's a fricking game!

This is D&D.

Serious. Business.