Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[Mallus]

So, if you can find a way around it, then it is in 4E terms not an "encounter". Nor have I seen guidelines for XP awards for problems challenging the players themselves.

That reading strikes me as being both overly-literal and deliberately uncharitable.

The text was stating puzzles aren't neccessarily encounters. However, puzzles that include danger --ie any of the classic puzzle traps found in AD&D modules-- are. As are puzzles that have a meaningful consequence for failure -say like the Fellowship at the Gates of Moria.

And can't we just assume that the rewards for problems that primarily challenge the player are commensurate with those that challenge their character?

"No Tom, I'm sorry, it's pretty clear to me that you solved that riddle, not Bosco the Brown. According to the DMG Bosco doesn't receive any XP".

Is there any planet upon which the above exchange is likely to occur?

 

[Hussar]

The other problem I have is this idea that old school play equals avoiding encounters.

Hey, I'm sure some people played this way. Apparently it's true. However, it certainly wasn't everyone. You didn't avoid encounters, that's XP you're giving up there. Kill enough orcs and it adds up. Plus, it was virtually impossible in most adventures to avoid the combat in order to get the treasure anyway. Not too many DM's let you bypass the dragon and clean out his hoard. Maybe some did, I dunno. Certainly not the ones I played with.

Trying to pass off any one style as "normative" for earlier edition play is ridiculous. You and I have no clear picture of how the game was played beyond our personal experience. No one does. And that anecdotal experience colors perception to the point where we lose objectivity.

Anyway, once again, can we please lay off the edition comparisons here? This should not be an edition specific thread. There shouldn't be any reason to compare one edition vs another when it comes to this topic outside of perhaps bare bones discussions of lethality.

You guys wanna compare editions, fork the thread.

Anyway, back on topic.

--------------

S'mon, I pretty much entirely agree with your analysis. It's not simply lethality, but also the complexity of combat which has the largest effect on role play.

 

[Ariosto]

It may clarify to understand that by notion I mean (in accord with received usage) "a general, vague, or imperfect conception or idea of something", or even "a fanciful or foolish idea; whim".

I was referring not to any critical, objective assessment of the game as designed but to the way I have seen players approach it.

 

[MadMaligor]

From my experiences, there is no more or less roleplay in 4E, though RC did have a good point about the X/Y factor, it is one of those things in 4E a good DM has to adjust to gameplay taste, and its not always easy.

The system is designed to give DM's the tools to award experience for things outside of combat, such as quest rewards. I would say that encounter XP awards are the majority, but are certainly not the only way to award XP. The DM is also free to award XP for overcoming something (I would consider any campaign altering event a quest related one), and can and should consider any campaign impacting short cut, like avoiding an important encounter, as a quasi quest.

For example, if the PC's avoid a key encounter, I rule that said encounter instantly becomes a type of wandering encounter. The PC's then have to continue to avoid or nuetralize the events. At that point IMHO they have defeated the encounter, and earn the XP. A DM should not give up on a line or defense or consider it static.

I would actually consider a DM remiss if he/she did that.

A DM should also be aware of his players nature and abilities. You can't always be ready for what players will do, but you should have encounters ready to go for your setting to add difficulty, inject roleplay, or beef up the XP allowance if your players are skipping things, or are consistently going off the beaten path. Im not advocating straight-jacketing the PCs, but rather admonishing any DM for not preparing for surprises from the PC's. In a nice way of course and certainly not directed at anyone here.

 

[Ariosto]

Mallus, that's simply what's written in the DMG. Your statement as to what makes a puzzle an 'encounter' is perfectly in keeping with my understanding -- and, I think, with the passage I quoted. So, it's a puzzle to me what you find "uncharitable".

DMG p. 120: "Say the characters avoid a hydra to get into the treasure vault it guards. Do they get XP for overcoming the hydra? No." In the old days, they would not have gotten XP particular to the hydra -- but they would have been potentially able to get the (probably much greater) XP for the treasure. This is the sort of situation in which Quest XP (mentioned immediately following) show their superiority over 'encounter' XP for a freer approach to the game.

Much more likely, I think, than posing challenges directly to players and then not giving XP -- which is not a course recommended in the DMG, nor did I suggest that it was -- is simple avoidance of presenting such challenges. That is in fact what I have seen in published scenarios, and the reaction of more experienced 4E players the one time such a puzzle appeared does not encourage me to suspect that such things have been much more common.

There is in fact some guidance on DMG p. 121: "If the puzzle is the entire encounter, treat it as a solo monster. If it's part of an encounter that also includes traps or monsters, count it as one or two monsters, depending on how hard it is and how important it is for the characters to solve it."

 

[Ariosto]

The other problem I have is this idea that old school play equals avoiding encounters.

No, it's just that "encounter" is not defined in 4E style.

The 1st edition Advanced D&D Players Handbook -- about as objective a basis as one might desire -- gives ample and excellent advice for successful play of the game as designed. (Reverse-engineering it may be the best way for a DM to grasp the key principles of good dungeon design.)

Encounters with the Grim Reaper are chief among those profitably to be avoided, but death is not the only inconvenience. Wasting time and other resources is not conducive to gaining XP. Even if several hundred fights for a few points each do not get one killed, the frivolous pursuit is likely to leave one well behind players who have directed their energies toward more remunerative undertakings.

Perhaps this very fundamental principle has become obscure with the decline of historical war-gaming, but the Gamer's First Rule is "Know The Victory Conditions". My impression is that skilled players of other games (such as 4E) in fact tend to grasp this intuitively, and to shape their strategies in conformance.

 

[Mallus]

So, it's a puzzle to me what you find "uncharitable".

Heh... looks like I was the one being uncharitable. Apologies. I thought you were suggesting the DMG instructs DM's not to reward creative solutions.

Much more likely, I think, than posing challenges directly to players and then not giving XP -- which is not a course recommended in the DMG, nor did I suggest that it was -- is simple avoidance of presenting such challenges.

I seem to recall the DMG explicitly mentioning using puzzles/riddles that challenge the player, either alone or as part of a Skill Challenge... but I could be wrong.

 

[Ariosto]

I seem to recall the DMG explicitly mentioning using puzzles/riddles that challenge the player, either alone or as part of a Skill Challenge... but I could be wrong.

You are correct! DMG pp. 81-84 offer a pretty good treatment of the subject in general terms -- "Puzzle as Skill Challenge" taking up only the final half-page, with an example challenge write-up. (That such things are so cumbersome is just one reason I eschew the formalism except when running an RPGA scenario. YMMV, of course.)

 

[Mallus]

Trying to pass off any one style as "normative" for earlier edition play is ridiculous. You and I have no clear picture of how the game was played beyond our personal experience.

This is true. But I do think it's informative to look that these kinds of anecdotes collectively. You won't find the definitive/normative way of playing early-edition D&D. But you find people using the same rules to play very different games. You'll also find trends, groups of groups with similar play styles.

Which would seem to indicate that player preferences inform play style more than mechanics.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyway, once again, can we please lay off the edition comparisons here? This should not be an edition specific thread.

Sorry for any part in any derail; just an interesting aside.

The X/Y factor doesn't need to be edition specific, but it is a function of rules (as is lethality) that affects roleplay.

I am not sure that the level of lethality directly affects roleplay, except in extreme examples. If jumping into combat is pretty much death, you will either avoid combat (if you can) or not invest in the character (if you cannot). A horror game or a funny game (like Paranoia) might work well with this level of lethality, but it is not conducive IMHO with S&S gaming.

I have no problem with character death, as you well know from previous discussions, but I do think there should be some cushion between life and death in the game. (Hence "Shake it Off" in RCFG.)

Of course, the other extreme is equally problematic IMHO. If combat isn't lethal enough, there is little reason to do anything but solve problems with a sword.

Now, I am not one of those who divides the game between combat and roleplaying, and I like a ruleset where the combat rules are simple enough to not break immersion, so that the demarcation between combat and non-combat isn't so sharp that fighting feels like another game. I believe that you can have a lot of roleplaying during a lot of combat, so long as (1) the combats don't grind on and on, and (2) the rules are light enough so as to not break immersion (a very subjective point).

I also know that there are some games where there is no real lethality, but that still work. As with ultra-lethal games, there are exceptions to the general rule. In a Doctor Who RPG, for example, PC death should be extremely rare (within the show's history: only Katarina, Sara Kingdom, Adric, K-9 Mark III......you might count Captain Jack Harkness, but as he keeps coming back to life, I do not). (A Torchwood RPG would be more lethal.)

Sorry about the rambling.

In conclusion, though, within a wide range of possibilities, I do not think that the level of lethality necessarily affects role-playing. It may do so at the extremes. IMHO, there are other factors than lethality related to combat rules that affect level of role-playing far more.


RC