Why are we okay with violence in RPGs?

Umbran · Jun 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Sure. I mean the GM adjudicates things all the time that are not covered by the rules, and in those moments the GM is acting as a sort of game mechanic.

I am suggesting, as someone said upthread, that the GM has several functions, only one of which is adjudicating. When the GM is just deciding a result, for their own reasons unrelated to the rules of the game - that's not adjudicating.

That moment when the GM is *authoring* a result, whatever their inspiration for that - that's not the moment they are adjudicating.

Flexor the Mighty! said:
I'd say my job as a referee is to adjudicate between the scenario, call it fiction or imaginary world and those in it, and the players actions.

I don't buy it. I don't think it fair to call it a "referee" when you choose the opposing force, the scenario, and determine the result yourself. If there were rules present, we'd have that to fall back on. But lacking them - again, it is a proper GM function, but I think calling it "referee" in this case is misleading.

Flexor the Mighty! · Jun 18, 2019

Celebrim said:
The question I have for that statement is, "Is relying on Save or Die or Energy Drains to challenge PCs fun?"

The problem started in 1e Unearthed Arcana. Fighters post UA were dishing about twice as much damage at a given level as the game had been built around, but even before UA AD&D had a problem that almost everything in the game was a glass cannon capable of dishing out far more damage than it could take. I used to joke that the initiative roll was the mid-game of AD&D combat, and that round 1 was the end game. Any monster that went last in the round would never get an attack off.

Still there are a variety of things you could do about that. The most important is to not put your fights in 'tournament spaces'. Instead of arenas with flat floors, you put the fight where the PCs are at a disadvantage of some sort. And you use the sort of monsters that can actually manage to challenge PCs. You can also tweak monsters from the MM's a bit and end up with good challenges, which works well in any edition. For example, taking a standard Ogre and giving it better than normal equipment like plate mail and a two-handed sword can on its own make an encounter much more challenging. I wrote a short guide.

I left AD&D in the early 90's, frustrated by the amount of rules and changes that I felt at the time I'd need to make to get the game to work. In many ways, it's a terrible game. In many ways it's brilliant. I get occasionally struck by nostalgia for the game, and want to run it with the knowledge I've accumulated since the time I left it.

For the first question, oh yes. Very much so. Its quite amusing to watch a higher level PC be afraid of a little spider with a save or die effect.

When I first started playing 1e AD&D I thought so much in the MM was too weak. Then when I started playing an OD&D clone recently the power of those monsters all made sense compared to the power of OD&D PC. It was the first book and I think written more in line with that. But the power creep in the 1e PH didn't help, and UA made it largely a push over.

Flexor the Mighty! · Jun 18, 2019

Umbran said:
I am suggesting, as someone said upthread, that the GM has several functions, only one of which is adjudicating. When the GM is just deciding a result, for their own reasons unrelated to the rules of the game - that's not adjudicating.

That moment when the GM is *authoring* a result, whatever their inspiration for that - that's not the moment they are adjudicating.

I don't buy it. I don't think it fair to call it a "referee" when you choose the opposing force, the scenario, and determine the result yourself. If there were rules present, we'd have that to fall back on. But lacking them - again, it is a proper GM function, but I think calling it "referee" in this case is misleading.

Call it whatever you will, the terminology doesn't mean that much to me. Referee, GM, DM, largely interchangeable terms for the guy running the game. And I determine the results myself for so much stuff since the game I run isn't loaded down with a rule for everything, especially talking to some NPC.

Umbran · Jun 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Not if you want people to talk in character and have what they say be the thing that determines whether the king is persuaded. I am not saying social mechanics are not useful, or are bad. But I mean you don't have to have them just because you want social interaction in the game (especially if you want actual social interaction in the game).

Boogeyman: "If I have the mechanics, I don't actually role play - I just use mechanics."

FATE, as an example, puts social interaction on the same mechanical footing as physical interaction.

In FATE-based games, if you say, "I attack" in physical combat, all you get is a very basic roll of your skill, which in general isn't so high as you'll be able to down anything other than a mook. If you want larger results, you have to engage with the situation more, and interact with the environment, and describe what it is you're doing and trying to achieve, and set up moves and situations that take multiple rounds to achieve results.

The same follows for social interaction - folks have to actually engage in the conversation, interact with the situation, and describe what they're doing and trying to achieve. Best way to do that is to do the role-play, for those who want to do that. For those who aren't as comfortable with that, we still get description of their approaches and tactics, and that's okay, too. Broadly speaking, the rules *enable* social interactions, because the players have some clear guidelines about how likely they are to succeed.

Celebrim · Jun 18, 2019

Flexor the Mighty! said:
For the first question, oh yes. Very much so. Its quite amusing to watch a higher level PC be afraid of a little spider with a save or die effect.

Only if there isn't a high level cleric on hand with a selection of Slow Poison and Neutralize Poison effects. Slow Poison can return a PC to life with no ill-effects, no resurrection failure chance, no lost CON, even if they fail a save or die poison effect that has an instantaneous result. Keoghtum's ointment along with a high level cleric renders most poison a non-issue, as your little spider needs a 20 to hit most likely, and the fighter needs only a 6 or so to pass the save, and worse come to worse, you cast 'Slow Poison' and then neutralize the venom by some means.

There are of course things with save or die effects that aren't "little spiders", but most of those IMO aren't very fun - Rot Grubs, Magnesium Spirits, Bodaks, etc. They are just random unavoidable death determined in the long run by dice and not player action.

When I first started playing 1e AD&D I thought so much in the MM was too weak. Then when I started playing an OD&D clone recently the power of those monsters all made sense compared to the power of OD&D PC. It was the first book and I think written more in line with that. But the power creep in the 1e PH didn't help, and UA made it largely a push over.

I largely agree with that. But I also think the problem was that the designers didn't really expect players to advance to more than 10th level or so, and if they did, figured DMs could invent their own challenges without needing any sort of guide. Further, I think that designers in that period didn't routinely theory craft and do the math. They just sort of went with their gut, and their gut tended to make everything a glass cannon.

Flexor the Mighty! · Jun 18, 2019

Celebrim said:
Only if there isn't a high level cleric on hand with a selection of Slow Poison and Neutralize Poison effects. Slow Poison can return a PC to life with no ill-effects, no resurrection failure chance, no lost CON, even if they fail a save or die poison effect that has an instantaneous result. Keoghtum's ointment along with a high level cleric renders most poison a non-issue, as your little spider needs a 20 to hit most likely, and the fighter needs only a 6 or so to pass the save, and worse come to worse, you cast 'Slow Poison' and then neutralize the venom by some means.

There are of course things with save or die effects that aren't "little spiders", but most of those IMO aren't very fun - Rot Grubs, Magnesium Spirits, Bodaks, etc. They are just random unavoidable death determined in the long run by dice and not player action.

I largely agree with that. But I also think the problem was that the designers didn't really expect players to advance to more than 10th level or so, and if they did, figured DMs could invent their own challenges without needing any sort of guide. Further, I think that designers in that period didn't routinely theory craft and do the math. They just sort of went with their gut, and their gut tended to make everything a glass cannon.

I disagree. Rot Grubs are wonderful, but usually only get players when they get foolish. I had a PC trying to fish out a hobbit corpse from a pit trap. They lowered him on a rope and he tried to lasso the corpse but kept failing. So he got frustrated and just grabbed it and they hauled him up. So he gets to the top and oh no, he's got rot grubs. So the rest of the party start putting torches to him. Which lead to him getting some nice burns, and the moronic fighter randomly applying more torch for a few rounds just to be sure. The table was laughing about that all night.

And yes, I'm well aware of the solutions to poison. But your cleric isn't always there, isn't always with spells, and doesn't always have the quick fix. My guys in S&W are far more hesitant around poison at any level than they were in 3.x or especially 5e. Even with a 8+ save they are worried about that failure and the rest of the party possibly being unable to haul them up multiple levels of Rappan Athuck while possibly under fire.

Bedrockgames · Jun 18, 2019

Umbran said:
Boogeyman: "If I have the mechanics, I don't actually role play - I just use mechanics."

FATE, as an example, puts social interaction on the same mechanical footing as physical interaction.

In FATE-based games, if you say, "I attack" in physical combat, all you get is a very basic roll of your skill, which in general isn't so high as you'll be able to down anything other than a mook. If you want larger results, you have to engage with the situation more, and interact with the environment, and describe what it is you're doing and trying to achieve, and set up moves and situations that take multiple rounds to achieve results.

The same follows for social interaction - folks have to actually engage in the conversation, interact with the situation, and describe what they're doing and trying to achieve. Best way to do that is to do the role-play, for those who want to do that. For those who aren't as comfortable with that, we still get description of their approaches and tactics, and that's okay, too. Broadly speaking, the rules *enable* social interactions, because the players have some clear guidelines about how likely they are to succeed.

I never said that. Everyone is different Umbran. Not crapping on social mechanics. But you don’t need them to to play

Flexor the Mighty! · Jun 18, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
I never said that. Everyone is different Umbrian. Not crapping on social mechanics. But you don’t need them to tokeplay

Is tokeplay how they do it in Mass since its been legalized?

Celebrim · Jun 18, 2019

Flexor the Mighty! said:
I disagree. Rot Grubs are wonderful, but usually only get players when they get foolish.

Your example assumes that the players know OOG that rot grubs exist and have some idea what to do about them because they've read the entry, and that the party is of sufficient level that some solution is available and non-lethal. In too many cases, they are just whoops, "Die. No save.", and in the rest of the cases they get rather old fast. At least they usually have a period of time where the party can respond to them before they become lethal. Things like the Bodak, which are randomly lethal and a pushover if they aren't, aren't ever fun.

I tend to get really annoyed by monsters that just come down to, "Do you roll well?" This can include in 1e things like the Death Knight, where if you win initiative as a party it will probably not survive the round, but if it goes first then Power Word: Kill or 20HD Fireball, and someone in the party is probably dying (without a save, or even if they save), turning the initiative into a save or die roll.

Say what you will about the danger of 1e AD&D, I have had far more glorious combats using 3e D&D than I ever had in 1e AD&D, which for all the fun we were having on the whole tended toward the grindy, the random, or the anticlimactic. Possibly things would have been better with more OD&D power level of PCs, but at the time I lacked the knowledge to adjust things.

hawkeyefan · Jun 18, 2019

5ekyu said:
If a group decides to go with simple binary for non-combst, then I tend to think thats what they want. The rules certainly dont require it. Both the GM and players csn ddcide to build as much into those as they eidh.

I mean, ok, so if we look at stealth and hiding, we see it starts with GM determination of whether thsats evedn even possible well before you get yo jour toll. You got spells starting at cantrips thst csn help, a little or a lot, plus help action, etc etc.

For social checks, the defined interaction process in the DMG for resolving those is far from "I persuade" and vice hit table- it includes determination of starting outlook, possibility of changing that using traits, possibly needing investigation etc.

And yep, the PHB mentions progress eith srtbsck, tight theremin the same sentences as they do pass and fail. So, not really given much less than they were. Then it shows up again in the DMG for saves snd attacks- fitted in with Success at cost.

Whether or not groups decide to use any of it is on them... but it's not a case that 5e by design boils those kinds of things to a simpler declare asnd one roll.

Sure, it's discussed as a possibility. But it's pretty vague is what I'm saying. One of the things I like about 5E is that they seem to have left it very malleable so that different groups can use it for different styles of play, and could tweak it as needed. The DMG is largely a list of suggestions on how to do so.

And that's great. I don't know if I'd hold it in the same category as a game that includes partial success in a more definitive way. As we've seen in some discussions on the boards, the very idea isn't always easily understood, so without actual rules, it's harder to grasp. For those familiar with the concept, or who take the mention in the PHB and DMG and run with it, yes, you can establish a pretty different system. But I don't know if many people would do so.