Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To begin with, I don't accept this premise, as it relates to actual game play. Only by pulling this example out of any sort of reasonable context can you create an example in which the player has no input.

I note that some games begin with a combat, in which the players have no input. This is, IMHO, pulled out of reasonable context (although it is generally given context later), and it is incumbant upon the DM to limit lethality accordingly.

That said, I will agree that at some point every encounter can narrow down to a point in which the player(s) no longer have meaningful choices. Once the orc's turn is up, and the axe is swinging, for example. And it is in this context that I answer the next bit.



Eventually, if a character dies, the odds have narrowed down to 100%. If they did not narrow down to 100%, the character would not be dead.

This is acceptable, to me, if the DM has been fair, and the death or failure is simply a matter of odds.

We running into the problem of complaining about a system that doesn't suit our needs, but here is the deal with this "Orc Axe Killer behind door":
In one moment, you are in an entirely non-combat situation. Then you decide to risk getting into a combat situation by opening the door. But this not just triggers the combat situation, but all ready the end-effect of combat - someone ends up dead (your character). There is no time to react and to acknowledge the risk of combat. You moved from a likelihood of combat occuring to the fact of death occuring before you can intervene in anyway. And thanks to the entire ablative hit point concept, the system also gave you the illusion of having a protection against it - and usually, it does. I personally think this is more then just a "you're playing the wrong game". The game design itself is wrong due to an inconsistency of how risks are managed.

Other games are more open-front about lethality (or-non-lethality). Warhammer is a deadly system - if you face superior odds, chances of getting seriously hurt or killed are not low. Though - even if it happens, you can spend a fortune point and stay alive, but knocked out. If you added this step of spending some game resource - karma, fortune, possibilities - to negate "Death of Random Critical" or "Death of Failing a Saving Throw", the game would be perceived differently - even if the character doesn't get to react, the player does.

In a combat where your hit points are continually whittled down, you don't need such a system - you have a far tighter control on the risks, and thus all risks are well calculated.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In a combat where your hit points are continually whittled down, you don't need such a system - you have a far tighter control on the risks, and thus all risks are well calculated.

Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.

The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We running into the problem of complaining about a system that doesn't suit our needs, but here is the deal with this "Orc Axe Killer behind door":

Please note that I am responding to a request for elaboration on a simpler point: If a chance of failure and/or death are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.

I am not telling anyone to play in the way I do.


RC

 

[tomBitonti]

Re: Having an axe killer behind a door. I actually had close to this scenario, with a gorillion waiting behind a door. The character opened the door, right in the face of the gorillion. The character ended up being attacked with all four claw attacks flat-footed. I think there were 3 hits including 1 critical, plus the rend damage for having a pair of attacks hit. That took down over 75% of the players hit points all before the player could react.

The scenario made sense: The party was blasting its way through the gorillion's lair, and the gorillion was defending its nest. The gorillion, quite sensibly, was hiding behind a door, having made it's listen check. The players were already in initiative when the door was opened.

But the scenario was very unfun for the character, and it gave the player a very strong aversion to taking additional risks.

---

In terms of what does this scenario tell us, I don't know. But what it taught me was to be very clear to convey to the characters the sense of danger that their players should realize given their level. They players can ignore me, but at least I tried. (If one of my players ever tried to wade through lava, I would check their wisdom, and unless there were exceptional circumstances, tell them what damage to expect and whether they were likely to get burned to death.)

How does this inform the current discussion: I'm not sure. I think that a scenario such as this one, and, generalizing to encounter design, shows the importance of encounter staging to player immersion. Are we trying to convey a feeling of the player's characters exploring their environment? Are we OK with going into a special "encounter mode" where the parts between encounters are a kind of glue that gets us to an artificial (but well tuned) battlefield? How far are we willing to go to "bend" the environment to make it more playable?

 

[Stoat]

With regard to the "Orc with a Greataxe" question, it occurs to me that two separate issues are being discussed here.

The first is the proximity between the choice made by the player and the fatal consequences of that choice. Every PC death is ultimately the result of a choice made by the player. However, the more remove between the choice and the consequence, the more players are likely to object. This issue frequently hinges on the players' knowledge of the threats their characters might face.

The second is the players' opportunity to avoid the consequences of the fatal choice once the extent of those consequences is known to the player. In other words, after the plaintiff realizes the trouble he's in, does he have a chance to get out?

As an example, consider two encounters between a party of sixth level characters and a Medusa.

In the first case, the DM makes use of random encounter tables and wandering monsters. The players are aware of this fact. During the characters' travels, the DM rolls on the encounter table and generates a medusa, a very rare monster for this area. A random roll determines that the encounter begins at a distance of less than 30'. The Medusa beats the 6th level Wizard's initiative and uses her gaze attack against him. The Wizard fails his save and turns to stone.

In the second case, an NPC reveals to the players that the MacGuffin is in the possession of a certain medusa. Additional research and divination yields the approximate location of the medusa's lair. The players travel to the location and observe the petrified remains of the medusa's prior victims. They press on and meet the medusa. The Wizard wins the initiative and uses a mirror to target the Medusa with a spell. The medusa survives and retaliates with her gaze attack. The Wizard fails his save and turns to stone.

In the first case, there is considerable distance between the player's death and the decision that lead to the death. Presumably, the player knew that the DM would use random encounters. It was reasonable for the player to assume that some random encounters would be deadly. However, the player is unlikely to know exactly what monsters might be randomly encountered in a given area, and he has no way to know what specific monters will appear during a given adventure. Arguably, the fatal decision is made when the player sits down to play. Further, the player has little, perhaps no chance to act and avoid death (or at least petrification), once the medusa appears on the scene. He gets an initiative check and a fortitude save -- two essentially passive dice rolls.

In the second case, the fatal outcome comes close behind the fatal decision. The players press on despite knowing that they are close to the medusa's lair. In addition, the petrified player has some chance to affirmatively act to avoid death.

The issue of proximity between choice and consequence is largely one of playstyle. Proximity decreases when the players can gain intelligence through research, investigation and divination. Proximity increases when encounters are random and, therefore, unpredictable. Some rules (Gather Information checks, the Augury spell) facilitate intelligence gathering, but overall I think its mostly up to the players and the DM to reach a consensus on how to handle this issue.

The ability of players to avoid the consequences of their bad decisions is more tightly wired to mechanics. In 3E it could be particularly difficult. Save or die effects were relatively common. Monsters could do large amounts of damage in a singe round. Attacks of opportunity made withdrawing from a losing fight difficult. 4E makes it easier to live to regret a bad decision by nerfing save or dies and lowering monster damage.

Any individual's preference is, as always, idiosyncratic and beyond debate. However, it seems to me that these it is preference regarding these two variables that's really driving this discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

With regard to the "Orc with a Greataxe" question, it occurs to me that two separate issues are being discussed here.

Good post.

It occurs to me that, if a medusa lived in the area, there would be evidence of her existence, and that a simulationist would include that evidence on his encounter tables. For example, were I running the game, it is likely that the encountered medusa would be a specific individual, currently away from her lair (which has a location on the map). If the medusa was a rare encounter in the area, the statuary remains of her victims would be far more common.

Consider this story (http://www.danieljbishop.ca/valley_of_song.pdf). Originally, this was designed as part of a scenario taking place in the World of Greyhawk, utilizing giant spiders, harpies, and a medusa. The details changed a lot in writing the story, but the description of the valley works very well for the sort of thing one might find in an area with a medusa.

(The email address in the "About the Author" section no longer works.)


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.

The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.

I think the trick is finding a "happy medium". In 4E, you don't arrive at the end of your hit point total at the end of combat. You arrive in the middle of it. (Or even more often). The sense of risk and challenge comes from having to manage your ways to heal the party members during combat (and to ensure that you take down your opponents before you run out of healing and hit points). This can involve a lot of factors - are you near enough (can you get nearer if you are slowed, have to cover challenging terrain, or if the Cleric is knocked prone or immobilized...)

 

[Delta]

Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.

The value of balance is very subjective. If an entire group places the same value on balance (whatever it may be) it becomes a much happier group.

Well put. I'd also add that it's important for a game system's "risk of sudden death" to be balanced with the game system's "ease of making a new character".

 

[Fifth Element]

Well put. I'd also add that it's important for a game system's "risk of sudden death" to be balanced with the game system's "ease of making a new character".

Interesting thought. 3E is bettered by earlier editions there. (Excluding 4E only because the risk of instant death is much less in that edition.)

 

[MerricB]

Tighter risk control makes for a more balanced game and I agree with that. The debate comes from balanced being more fun or not? For me fights that are nothing more than an ablation of ever-skyrocketing hit point totals that take a long time to play out are not more fun than a faster paced system with a higher risk of sudden death.

Indeed.

Mind you, the one thing that 4e doesn't have is skyrocketing HP totals, certainly in comparison to 3e! (for PCs at least). Once you remove the Con bonus as a component of HP, it's amazing to see how low the totals become.

###

With regard to "instant death", compare Call of Cthulhu and Rolemaster...

Cheers!