Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[LostSoul]

If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one. If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.

Yeah, I agree. I don't have a problem when this happens in 3e; it's part of the game, you know it can happen, you deal with it if it does.

The example is just to show that the DM can be a good DM and that Bob doesn't have to make any stupid choices for him to die.

Then again... when I play I usually get the Rogue or Ranger to move 30 feet ahead, Silently and Stealthily (a level of Barbarian helps for fast movement so you don't slow down the party). In this case he'd have crept up to the crest of the hill and the orc would have to beat his Hide and Move Silently checks. So maybe there was something Bob could have done. Huh.

(I'm imagining the orc encounter is on the random encounter table to show how the orcs in this region of our sandbox are getting more and more blatant in their ability to harass travel; they leave an orc to guard a bridge (maybe there are a few more orcs lounging under the bridge out of the hot sun).)

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the other hand, this is partly a problem of players not really thinking through the possibilties of an encounter. If you are facing off with a strong looking dude with a x3 critical damage weapon, you should be afraid, and should be ready to run away.

Not to mention the bad luck of the whole party losing init, or if they did not, not having reach weapons to gain an AoO or three before the orc closed. Or not scouting ahead along the road. Bob: "Hey, isn't the road to Glaverston usually more heavily travelled than this? Don't we usually meet people coming from Glaverston that we can get news from? Something must be happening on the road....better be more cautious!"

This brings up yet another problem with 3E (and I don't think that 4E has really fixed it; I don't consider the damage nerf to be a proper fix). That is, that the encounter format pushes players to engage, and has them rely on the game master to ensure that the encounter is balanced. There's isn't much in the encounter format where each side sizes each other up, nor are there easy spots to disengage.

Very true. This is something I intend to address in my own all-or-mostly OGC ruleset.

Hot Pursuit is a nice package, though, for running chase scenes in 3e, if that helps.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the module, you cannot see through the waterfall. (Otherwise Stealth would not be an option in A3.)

Is that explicit? Can you quote?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I agree. I don't have a problem when this happens in 3e; it's part of the game, you know it can happen, you deal with it if it does.

The example is just to show that the DM can be a good DM and that Bob doesn't have to make any stupid choices for him to die.

Then again... when I play I usually get the Rogue or Ranger to move 30 feet ahead, Silently and Stealthily (a level of Barbarian helps for fast movement so you don't slow down the party). In this case he'd have crept up to the crest of the hill and the orc would have to beat his Hide and Move Silently checks. So maybe there was something Bob could have done. Huh.

(I'm imagining the orc encounter is on the random encounter table to show how the orcs in this region of our sandbox are getting more and more blatant in their ability to harass travel; they leave an orc to guard a bridge (maybe there are a few more orcs lounging under the bridge out of the hot sun).)

Exactly so.

But if you look at the post (Hussar's) I am responding to with my "Maybe you should try Candyland" post, it is, essentially, a bunch of whining about consequences getting in the way of your fun, even though you should have known those were real possibilities when you decided to do whatever they were consequences of.

By all means, play a game that gives you consequences you want. But don't whine about the game you've chosen to play. IMHO, if you are whining about the game you've chosen to play, it is appropriate to suggest another game.


RC

 

[Fenes]

By all means, play a game that gives you consequences you want. But don't whine about the game you've chosen to play. IMHO, if you are whining about the game you've chosen to play, it is appropriate to suggest another game.

Or just house rule it until it works for you. I don't really get why people complain about something they can easily change - especially with now 4 editions and their sub-editions to mine for ideas and mechanics.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I agree that there must be consequences. I am not playing Candyland.
I agree that if I don't want a certain consequence, I shouldn't even allow it. But why should this mean I can't use, say a Mummy? Why do the mechanics have to get in the way of what I want?

Have either of you actually played Candy Land?

It sounds like you either forgot what it was like or didn't. Ever get stuck in Molassas Swamp?

Please stop insulting Candy Land.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Or just house rule it until it works for you. I don't really get why people complain about something they can easily change - especially with now 4 editions and their sub-editions to mine for ideas and mechanics.

I considered making that explicit, but I thought it just rolled into "play a game that gives you consequences you want". Also, I've mentioned houseruling/changing rules so much already in this thread, and exampled so many houserules on EN World, that I just figured that would be a given.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Have either of you actually played Candy Land?

It sounds like you either forgot what it was like or didn't. Ever get stuck in Molassas Swamp?

Please stop insulting Candy Land.

 

[ExploderWizard]

DM: So what's Bob up to today?
Bob: Heading to Glaverston to find out what the hell this strange rock is I picked up.
DM: Okay, cool. It's a few days away. You travel blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Around noon on the third day, you come over the crest of a gently sloping hill and spot an orc guarding a bridge.
Bob: How far away is he?
DM: <checks map> About 100 feet.
Bob: I get my axe ready.
DM: Yeah, he's in no mood for tea and small talk; let's roll init.
Bob: 19.
DM: He charges at you, screaming and yelling. Critical hit! You take... 42 damage.
Bob: I die. I guess I should have stayed in bed.

edit: I'm assuming that Bob's part of a party of PCs, and that the DM is using a random encounter (with a map).

This may not be everyone's style. Whats wrong with tea and small talk?
[sarcasm off]

Ok this does bring up a fine point. Assuming the party did parley with the orc, and the conflict came to combat, the same thing could happen.

In a flavor vs game sense D&D is supposed to be a game with (hopefully) some flavor. If we see hit points as an abstraction and "hits" taken as a gradual wearing down of moxie and not wounds per se, then WHY do we need critical HITS!

Because they are FUN!!?

I don't think critical hits or bloated hit point totals are needed for fun gameplay.

As far as "save or suck" effects go, thier impact on having fun is proportionate to the time it takes to play out a combat.

If the combat takes the whole friggin session because everything has a ton of HP of course its unfun to rendered "ineffective" for the fight.

If combats are resolved in thirty minutes of real time or less, being held, paralyzed, ect for a good portion of that fight isn't so terrible and its FUN to be able to do the same to the bad guys.

 

[LostSoul]

Is that explicit? Can you quote?

Nope. I think it's a pretty safe assumption, though.

"If the situation looks dire, the slinger shrieks, "Irontooth must be warned!" and runs into the lair to alert those within. If the PCs are unable to kill the kobold before it enters the lair, the slinger succeeds at warning the kobolds inside."

If he needs to get into the lair to warn them, I don't think they can see or hear through it.

I did miss the box that says that "The creatures inside the lair ... do not emerge to engage the PCs, believing the outside guards can handle them." It goes on to say that they will attack if PCs enter.

This doesn't seem too stupid to me; I can buy it.