Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[Celebrim]

I think you're confusing the use of 'realism' regarding PC power level (as in, PCs are only as powerful as real-life people might be) with 'realism' in the sense of real-life instances of random chance being "stranger than fiction".

Then I wished you'd use some descriptor like 'dramatic', because when I hear 'cinematic' it immediately conjures for me the idea of an RPG which has a certain visual texture - not the idea of an RPG which follows a narrative story arc.

And in this use of cinematic/dramatic, I now fully disagree with you that 'E6 does this badly' and that 4e does this well. There is nothing that keeps you from running LoTR as an E6 game and some reason to think it makes a better E6 game than any other version of D&D - "Gandalf is a 5th level Wizard and all."

As for the rest, as I've always said, "Good fiction has the virtue of being more believable than reality."

So the main reason grim'n'gritty play is anti-cinematic is because users of a grim'n'gritty system almost exclusively desire to remove the advantage to PCs inherent in just about every system and replace it with more random elements.

I disagree with this. I think most players/refs want the game to be grim'n'gritty to increase its immersiveness - the since that you are deeply connected to the story world - without the need to vastly increase the ammount of preparation you do. Grim'N'Gritty things, like keeping track of encumberance, what people are holding, ammunition, food, suffering from mundane hazards like disease, inclimate weather, rough terrain, horror, dehydration and such, and forcing the players to overcome challenges through more mundane means (heavy clothing, pack animals, rope, torches), all serve to ground the story in a basic reality which is familiar to our own reality. It keeps us inside the story instead of 'merely' playing a game. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with more 'random' elements.

In much the same way, sandbox play removes the traditional story structure from the PCs' adventures and replaces it with the same organisational force that ultimately guides our real-life day-to-day experience - random chance.

Except that, for any number of reasons, PC's tend to have vastly more control over their destinies than most real people do.

The more narrative-style adventure design espoused by most published game designers (and so scorned by sandboxers) makes it more likely that these dramatic elements will occur.

I don't think sandboxers necessarily scorn narrative-style adventures, provided that the don't expect to ride rails. And good sandboxing usually involves having multiple narrative arcs available as hooks to keep the action moving.

 

[Snoweel]

Then I wished you'd use some descriptor like 'dramatic', because when I hear 'cinematic' it immediately conjures for me the idea of an RPG which has a certain visual texture - not the idea of an RPG which follows a narrative story arc.

I know what you mean. I first read 'cinematic' used that way in a GURPS sourcebook and it was confusing at first.

But I've since gotten used to it and if you play around with Google you'll find plenty of other rpg discussions where it's used in the same way.

'Dramatic' more implies the quality of tension in a particular moment.

And in this use of cinematic/dramatic, I now fully disagree with you that 'E6 does this badly' and that 4e does this well. There is nothing that keeps you from running LoTR as an E6 game and some reason to think it makes a better E6 game than any other version of D&D - "Gandalf is a 5th level Wizard and all."

Again, I think you're confusing the power level of the protagonists with the structure of the adventures they participate in.

Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

However, if Gandalf really was a 5th level wizard then he would have been destroyed in 1 round by the Balrog.

In truly cinematic play, an encounter like that would most certainly have been level-appropriate, because then the moment would have been sufficiently dramatic for an adventure's climax (see my use of the word 'dramatic'.)

I disagree with this. I think most players/refs want the game to be grim'n'gritty to increase its immersiveness

How is that a disagreement then?

I said that fans of grim'n'gritty want to remove the adavntage to PCs inherent in most rpg systems. I thought it was implied that this was to increase immersiveness.

After all, there is no inherent advantage to us, the protagonists, in real life. And it is often our mundane day-to-day troubles that thwart us. I assume replicating this daily struggle is the appeal of grim'n'gritty.

Grim'N'Gritty things, like keeping track of encumberance, what people are holding, ammunition, food, suffering from mundane hazards like disease, inclimate weather, rough terrain, horror, dehydration and such, and forcing the players to overcome challenges through more mundane means (heavy clothing, pack animals, rope, torches), all serve to ground the story in a basic reality which is familiar to our own reality. It keeps us inside the story instead of 'merely' playing a game. I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with more 'random' elements.

Put it this way - the Fellowship of the Ring were NEVER going to fail due to dysentery or dehydration.

Neither will any PCs in any game I ever run.

Except that, for any number of reasons, PC's tend to have vastly more control over their destinies than most real people do.

The only way through the Misty Mountains led through Moria, where Gandalf encountered a Balrog (no save).

Had he been insufficiently powerful to deal with it the story would have ended there.

I don't think sandboxers necessarily scorn narrative-style adventures, provided that the don't expect to ride rails. And good sandboxing usually involves having multiple narrative arcs available as hooks to keep the action moving.

Any good campaign has multiple story arcs.

The difference with sandboxing is that Gandalf and the Fellowship, faced with no other choice in the Misty Mountains, would have encountered the Balrog whether they were level 5 or level 25.

I put it to you that any DM that allows a 5th level party to survive such an encounter is not playing the Balrog to character and therefore isn't really running a sandbox.

 

[S'mon]

Balrogs only have 8 hit dice (OD&D)

In fact the original Wilderlands setting had balrogs as random wilderness encounters.

 

[Celebrim]

Again, I think you're confusing the power level of the protagonists with the structure of the adventures they participate in.

Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

I don't think I'm the one that is confused.

Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

Hense, E6 - which is a system primarily defined by its level limitations - cannot be said to be handicapped in producing 'cinematic' adventure or style of play because of its level limitations.

However, if Gandalf really was a 5th level wizard then he would have been destroyed in 1 round by the Balrog.

Not if the Balrog used its 1st edition stats. The smaller sort of Balrog (we may assume that the Balrog of Moria was not a Lord amongst its own kind) would have had like 6HD IIRC. Definately a tough fight, but if you are have a magic staff of some sort (as Gandalf appears to) then certainly doable.

The Balrog you know is a victim of stat inflation, of the notion that large scale 'cinematic' play can only be the result of larger numbers or that larger numbers are somehow inherently cooler. It's happened in every edition of D&D thus far. In early 1st edition, 100 h.p. was just an insane amount of hit points for a PC. By late 1st edition or 2nd edition, people could concieve of PC's breaking the 200 h.p. mark. By 3rd ediition, most characters of any class would concievably break the 200 h.p. mark, and you could reasonably expect to have a 300 h.p. PC's. if they were built to maximize hitpoints. I have no idea what the theoreticals for PC's in 4e are, but I do know that the hit points of the monsters have inflated again and that the number of expected levels have increased yet again.

In truly cinematic play, an encounter like that would most certainly have been level-appropriate, because then the moment would have been sufficiently dramatic for an adventure's climax (see my use of the word 'dramatic'.)

Look again at what you just said. Once again you've tied cinematic play to level. Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

After all, there is no inherent advantage to us, the protagonists, in real life. And it is often our mundane day-to-day troubles that thwart us. I assume replicating this daily struggle is the appeal of grim'n'gritty.

Why would you assume that? Do you regularly scale Mt. Everest, or regularly follow the Amazon to its source, or treck out into the Great Erg of the Sahara? Do you regularly descend down the big drop into the depths of Fern Cave (because some of us probably do), and if you do do you consider this your mundane day-to-day troubles? Do you regularly face off against tribes of cannibals, thugs of secret snake cults, incarnated nightmares, insane undead serial killers, and monsters of legend? Is that what you call your mundane day-to-day troubles? Yet, what about that is incompatible with 'grim-and-gritty' roleplaying? In fact, it is precisely capturing those sorts of challenges that 'grim-and-gritty' DMs/players want. It's precisely because in high level play, players don't treck out into the Great Erg of the Sahara - they greater teleport, wind walk, take a flying carpet, etc. - that you do 'grim-and-gritty' play. Not because the adventures are more mundane if they are solved by mundane means, but because they are less mundane and more 'cinematic' when treking out into the Great Erg actually happens and the players are conscious of the great adventure that this represents rather than treating it as a trivial obstacle which is easily put out of the mind.

Put it this way - the Fellowship of the Ring were NEVER going to fail due to dysentery or dehydration.

Neither will any PCs in any game I ever run.

Put it this way - the Fellowship of the Ring were never going to fail for any reason. Hense, the whole analogy is false, but to the extent that you want to site the LotR as canonical, then I would say that the closest the adventure ever came to failure, the root cause was dehydration. In the last sixth of the book, the overriding concern of the PC's was food and water, and pretty much every chapter is focused on their attempts to overcome the limited water supply.

The difference with sandboxing is that Gandalf and the Fellowship, faced with no other choice in the Misty Mountains, would have encountered the Balrog whether they were level 5 or level 25.

First of all, no they wouldn't, because in a good sandbox campaign and unlike a good story, nothing ever happens 'no save'. In something other than a story, its quite possible to traverse Moria without meeting the Balrog. In fact, within the story, it was also possible, because both Gandalf and Aragorn had done it before and concievably had the party been more stealthy ("Fool of a Took!") they could have done it again. But what does that have to do with anything? If I'm a DM in a sandbox campaign, I probably won't present the hook of an NPC coming to the characters and saying 'You possess the One Ring of Power' until I suspect that some path allows them to accomplish the quest they are likely to take if they bite the hook. However, if you go to Moria, there is a Balrog in the depths and that will be true regardless of when you go to Moria.

Secondly, if their is a Balrog in Moria or a Dragon in the Mountain, then if you go to Moria or go to the Mountain you potentially find a Balrog or a Mountain. It's not like you are going to randomly stumble into Moria or Smaug's Lair. There are huge freakin' campaign sign posts in front of Moria and the Lonely Mountain saying, "Beware adventurer!". However, quite arguably neither the Balrog nor Smaug are level appropriate encounters for 'the party', and quite arguably no truly dramatic conclusion involves a level appropriate encounter regardless of the character's level.

Thirdly, what does level have to do with a discussion of 'cinematic' gameplay anyway. Remember, the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's precisely because in high level play, players don't treck out into the Great Erg of the Sahara - they greater teleport, wind walk, take a flying carpet, etc. - that you do 'grim-and-gritty' play. Not because the adventures are more mundane if they are solved by mundane means, but because they are less mundane and more 'cinematic' when treking out into the Great Erg actually happens and the players are conscious of the great adventure that this represents rather than treating it as a trivial obstacle which is easily put out of the mind.

Well put, and absolutely correct.

In the last sixth of the book, the overriding concern of the PC's was food and water, and pretty much every chapter is focused on their attempts to overcome the limited water supply.

Yes. And hiding from encounters.

I also agree with your comments re: Moria. Had it not been for Pippen, the group might have made it through Moria without encountering a single orc, let alone the Balrog.

Note also that Gandalf, in addition to the magic staff (which is reproduced in AD&D, including the ability to burst it for extra damage), Gandalf had one of the great artifacts of Middle Earth to aid him -- one of the three Elven Rings.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

I also agree with your comments re: Moria. Had it not been for Pippen, the group might have made it through Moria without encountering a single orc, let alone the Balrog.

This is something of a digression, but that's strictly speaking, not true. The orcs were gaurding the lower gate (they didn't feel the need to gaurd the upper gate, because of the watcher). However, the Balrog was presumably in the depths (presumably hoarding or working/smithing mithril), and had not Pippin created a disturbance, the main body of the orcs and the Balrogs probably not would arrived in time to prevent the parties escape. Let's also recall that the Balrog was unsure enough of itself that even after it was awakened again by Balin's companions, it required a rather extended campaign to crush the drawves. It apparantly considered a small dwarven army to be 'a level appropriate encounter'.

Note also that Gandalf, in addition to the magic staff (which is reproduced in AD&D, including the ability to burst it for extra damage), Gandalf had one of the great artifacts of Middle Earth to aid him -- one of the three Elven Rings.

Although, in the context of "Gandalf is a 5th level Wizard", 'one of the great artifacts of Middle Earth' might be stated out as a 'ordinary' Ring of Wizardry or something alike.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's also recall that the Balrog was unsure enough of itself that even after it was awakened again by Balin's companions, it required a rather extended campaign to crush the drawves. It apparantly considered a small dwarven army to be 'a level appropriate encounter'.

A very good point.


RC

 

[Imban]

if you (...) go to the Mountain you potentially find a (...) Mountain.

I'd hope so!

 

[Snoweel]

I don't think I'm the one that is confused.

Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

Hense, E6 - which is a system primarily defined by its level limitations - cannot be said to be handicapped in producing 'cinematic' adventure or style of play because of its level limitations.

You might not be confused but judging by some of your responses in this thread your comprehension appears to be lacking. I understand English may be your second language so please don't take this the wrong way.

The key to understanding my statement is one little word - "the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant".

The sentence reads very differently without that word - 'alone' - so its inclusion should have drawn the reader's atention. Clearly you didn't even notice it and I accept all responsibility.

When I say "the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant" I mean to say that it is the relative levels of the characters and the threats arrayed against them.

The implication then is that encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play.

Another factor, that is related to the first, is that adventures that aren't structured narratively by some external agent (ie. the DM) will only follow cinematic conventions by sheer accident.

It follows then, that E6 will produce cinematic play when it involves mostly level appropriate encounters and when adventures are written as such, rather than just arising from a freeform sandbox interplay between the PCs and the various world elements.

In my (entirely anecdotal) experience, grim'n'gritty games tend to go hand-in-hand with sandbox play. This means that they involve an amount of too hard/too easy encounters (because the encounters aren't tailored to the party) as well as lacking any kind of adventure structure (because that's the opposite of sandbox play).

Not if the Balrog used its 1st edition stats.

I believe E6 is a D&D 3.x modification.

The Balrog you know is a victim of stat inflation

Even if I was running E6 I would give Durin's Bane over 10HD.

the notion that large scale 'cinematic' play can only be the result of larger numbers

'Cinematic' has nothing to do with scale either. I think the word you're looking for is 'epic'.

or that larger numbers are somehow inherently cooler.

To be honest with you I'm not a fan of the massive numbers either and I was quite impressed with E6 and Wulf Ratbane's Grim'nGritty system before it.

But after leaving 3.x and playing some Exalted I decided that it's just fun to play in games where super powered PCs fight ancient dragons and demiliches and armies of demons.

So you could say I'm a reformed grim'n'gritty snob.

I have no idea what the theoreticals for PC's in 4e are, but I do know that the hit points of the monsters have inflated again and that the number of expected levels have increased yet again.

I think, if you're looking at 30 levels through the 1e paradigm, then it will look overblown and obscene.

Personally I first played BECMI, which went up to 36 levels. After that I played 3.x with its 20 levels and so now I see level 30 in 4e as equal to level 20 in 3.x

The big difference I see between 3.x and 4e (regarding levels) is the levels of 'typical' NPCs. Where in 3.x the typical guardsman was level 1, I now see him as level 3 or higher. Even higher than that using minion rules.

Certainly I don't see 5th level as particularly heroic because that's only halfway through the Heroic tier; that character has 25 levels of potential to fulfill.

Then again, I didn't have my view of character levels set by 1e or 2e, which would admittedly make it hard to cope with the idea of a 9th level fighter that doesn't own a vast swathe of countryside.

Look again at what you just said. Once again you've tied cinematic play to level. Try and look at it this way: the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

Emphasis mine.

Why would you assume that? Do you regularly scale Mt. Everest, or regularly follow the Amazon to its source, or treck out into the Great Erg of the Sahara? Do you regularly descend down the big drop into the depths of Fern Cave (because some of us probably do), and if you do do you consider this your mundane day-to-day troubles? Do you regularly face off against tribes of cannibals, thugs of secret snake cults, incarnated nightmares, insane undead serial killers, and monsters of legend? Is that what you call your mundane day-to-day troubles? Yet, what about that is incompatible with 'grim-and-gritty' roleplaying? In fact, it is precisely capturing those sorts of challenges that 'grim-and-gritty' DMs/players want. It's precisely because in high level play, players don't treck out into the Great Erg of the Sahara - they greater teleport, wind walk, take a flying carpet, etc. - that you do 'grim-and-gritty' play. Not because the adventures are more mundane if they are solved by mundane means, but because they are less mundane and more 'cinematic' when treking out into the Great Erg actually happens and the players are conscious of the great adventure that this represents rather than treating it as a trivial obstacle which is easily put out of the mind.

All those things are cool, I agree, but let me share an anecdote with you.

I am a soldier in the Australian army. When I was in the infantry I pushed my body to extremes and did some insanely cool things. But if I'm honest with you, aside from being shot at from well outside small-arms range, the most serious threats to my health and safety were dehydration, hypothermia, vehicle accidents and snakebite.

None of those things are worthy (in my opinion) of being published in any sort of entertainment medium - only my mother found them interesting. Although if they'd occurred in conjunction with insane undead serial killers I'm sure it'd be a different story.

Put it this way - the Fellowship of the Ring were never going to fail for any reason.

Not if I was running it as an adventure.

Hense, the whole analogy is false, but to the extent that you want to site the LotR as canonical, then I would say that the closest the adventure ever came to failure, the root cause was dehydration. In the last sixth of the book, the overriding concern of the PC's was food and water, and pretty much every chapter is focused on their attempts to overcome the limited water supply.

Yeah?

That's probably why Jackson cut it out of the movie.

Personally I loved the movies but found the books dull and weird - I could never get past the inane Tom Bombadil scene.

Incidentally also cut out of the movies.

First of all, no they wouldn't, because in a good sandbox campaign and unlike a good story, nothing ever happens 'no save'.

Why not? If NPC peasants can be eaten by dragons despite their best efforts, what's stopping the same thing happening to 1st level PCs? DM fiat? So much for letting the dice fall where they may.

In something other than a story, its quite possible to traverse Moria without meeting the Balrog. In fact, within the story, it was also possible, because both Gandalf and Aragorn had done it before and concievably had the party been more stealthy ("Fool of a Took!") they could have done it again. But what does that have to do with anything? If I'm a DM in a sandbox campaign, I probably won't present the hook of an NPC coming to the characters and saying 'You possess the One Ring of Power' until I suspect that some path allows them to accomplish the quest they are likely to take if they bite the hook.

Sounds narrativist to me. Or are certain of your NPCs omniscient?

It's not like you are going to randomly stumble into Moria or Smaug's Lair. There are huge freakin' campaign sign posts in front of Moria and the Lonely Mountain saying, "Beware adventurer!".

Ultimately, how do the PCs know whether they can handle the threat? Honestly, how can they ever truly know unless they face it?

Do they run from every unknown threat? Very heroic.

Do they boldly step up and face the threat? (Because we are all sitting around the table for something right?) What if the threat is 10 levels above the party? Is it going to offer them a chance to get out alive? What a coincidence.

Why is it only level appropriate enemies that refuse to show the PCs mercy in sandbox campaigns.

However, quite arguably neither the Balrog nor Smaug are level appropriate encounters for 'the party', and quite arguably no truly dramatic conclusion involves a level appropriate encounter regardless of the character's level.

Don't confuse "level appropriate" with "standard difficulty". There are extremely difficult encounters that are still "level appropriate".

But I maintain that an encounter overwhelmingly hard or easy can never be anything but an anticlimax.

Thirdly, what does level have to do with a discussion of 'cinematic' gameplay anyway. Remember, the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant to how cinematic - or not - an adventure or style of play is.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I say "the levels of the characters alone is irrelevant" I mean to say that it is the relative levels of the characters and the threats arrayed against them.

Let's imagine that Celebrim didn't understand you. Then, all that would determine if something was "cinematic" is relation of threat to PC level. Indeed, any threat, so long as it held the proper relationship to PC level, would be equally cinematic.

Only "encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play."

Now, as you say, perhaps English isn't your primary language, but if this is what you mean to say, it becomes strange that E6 would somehow be less cinematic than any other game. Surely, if only "encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play," E6 is as capable of delivering cinematic play as any other edition.

Hence Celebrim's comment that he doesn't seem to be the one confused. Either only "encounters that are too easy for the PCs, as well as encounters that are too difficult for them, make for other-than-cinematic play", and E6 is as conducive to cinematic play as any other game, or there is something else involved. Your statements, as given in previous posts ("4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly."), are mutually contradictory. That indicates confusion.

An examination of your statements leads one to believe that it isn't merely the relation of threat to PC level that you view as conducive to fun play. You clearly are looking as specific types of threats as acceptable, and others as not acceptable. Perhaps you meant to clearly demark this part of your statements from those related to "cinematic" play, but it is (I think) understandable if there is some confusion here.

Suggesting E6 as a superior alternative to 4e misses the point that grim'n'gritty = dull.

4e models cinematic play better than any edition to date. E6 does it extremely poorly.

The above seems to strongly suggest some relationship between these opinions. It is no disparagement on anyone's language ability to be able to see that suggestion. In specific, it suggests that the more "realistic" something is, the less "cinematic" it is, and vice versa.


RC