Playing 2e, 3e, and 4e at the same time: Observations

[Raven Crowking]

There is nothing about player choice when you are hit with a save or die and the enemy spellcaster won initiative, or a huge spider hit you with a type F poison.

Not if the GM says, "You wake up and are hit with a type F poison," no, otherwise, I disagree that it has nothing to do with player choice. Vehemently.

But I'll take your larger point that Narrative Path school of DMing does want to see a satisfying conclusion to the story. But it isn't like we're a minority of DM's or anything. Most people do a campaign as a story, rather than simply a sandbox dungeon crawl. Even if the DM is a sandboxer, he probably has a player or two who wants his character to tell a story and have an arc.

I think you misunderstand, somewhat, how a sandbox is intended to work.

Or I do.

Every player in a sandbox game is strive toward one or more narrative arcs. The difference is that, rather than the GM choosing what endpoint is desired, the players choose which endpoints are desired. And, rather than ensuring that the PCs get there, the GM steps back, placing the onus of getting there on the players.

In my current game, there are several endpoints in play, some of which will probably be reached, and some of which probably will not. But I could not say which are which.....there are a fair number of player characters in the mix, with most players having more than one.

Both successes and failures are interesting arcs. The campaign milieu is large enough for comedies, histories, and tragedies.

But my point is that -- despite many moves over the last 30+ years, over several American States, and into Canada -- I've never had any difficulty finding or maintaining players. Indeed, the opposite is true; I have more willing players than I have time to run games. This leads me to conclude that "letting the hammer fall" not only does not quickly get you fired as GM, but that it is an element which many players seek out. IME, with hundreds of players, I would go so far as to say "the overwhelming majority".

Obviously, play what you like.

Just don't be surprised that Others Mileage May Vary when discussing what should happen when a low-resource party decides to push on/try their luck holing up in the dungeon. Mind you, once they know that the Hammer Will (Likely) Fall, many players choose better tactics.....like saving some resources for later!

I also don't see why there can't be a version of D&D in the mold of 1e or 2e that allows for running narrative path games.

I think 2e was intended to be that game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] -

No, the Narrative Path school of GMing has a serious problem with allowing the consequences of player bad luck. There is nothing about player choice when you are hit with a save or die and the enemy spellcaster won initiative,

Sure there is. Did the party know they were facing a high level magic-user? i.e. were they gathering intelligence and scouting? If they knew, and they have at least one cleric (and if they don't, why don't they), why wasn't at least one Silence, 15' Radius spell employed, for example?

When a player fails a saving throw and dies, there is no player choice there, only bad luck.

You're leaving out all the actions that led up to the event. Skillful play minimizes these "chance situations," mostly through gathering intelligence (divination, scouting, etc.) and preparing with foreknowledge. Generally, you can make your own fate, at least as far as engaging combat or provoking "save or die" situations.

If old school gaming cannot accomodate Narrative path GMing, then all those campaign settings were a mistake. Heck, maybe even GDQ was a mistake.

Against the Giants specifically cites locations for parties to set up hidden camps to retreat to provided reasonable precautions are taken, for example. That is, the expectation is not that the party will necessary "clean out" the dungeon sites all in one go (using 'healing surges' between individual encounters). There's also an expectation of henchmen, hirelings, and followers, which mitigate the hp/status attrition of the party.

 

[ferratus]

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] - First of all, you keep saying that I'm advocating a low resource party pushing on to the breaking point. None of my examples have been that. My point is unless you can undo bad luck, you can quickly get in a situation where there is no way out. A succession of good rolls on the DM's side of the screen can make for a hopeless situation in any edition save for 4e.

I also disagree vehemently that "choosing to play the game at all" is player choice. If you are a rogue, you check doors for traps and open locks. If the DM put a poison trap in there that you fail to detect and kills you on a bad saving throw, that is bad luck that killed you. That is not player choice in any meaningful sense of the word.

If 2e was meant to be a narrative path system, the inclusion of save or die effects means it failed at it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] - First of all, you keep saying that I'm advocating a low resource party pushing on to the breaking point.

No...I'm addressing the idea that, when the party has pushed past the breaking point, the GM either makes allowances or quickly finds himself out of a job. I can go back and get the exact quote if you like.

My point is unless you can undo bad luck, you can quickly get in a situation where there is no way out.

It depends upon whether you expect the game to get you out, or if you expect you to get you out. I expect me to get me out. Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail. But, even in the worst situation, I don't want the GM to fudge for me.

Some days you get the bear; some days the bear gets you. But, only in the most nonsensical of games is there no sign that the bear exists before it is chewing on your bones!

I also disagree vehemently that "choosing to play the game at all" is player choice. If you are a rogue, you check doors for traps and open locks. If the DM put a poison trap in there that you fail to detect and kills you on a bad saving throw, that is bad luck that killed you. That is not player choice in any meaningful sense of the word.

I suppose that depends upon presentation. However, I have never run into a situation where I decided that I hadn't chosen to pick the lock.....and my making the attempt implies that I have considered the possibility. Surely, I also know that there is a possibility that my attempt to detect a trap may fail?

I will agree that, in some rulesets, there are cases where the granularity of choices could be increased. Increasing that granularity so much that bad choices and bad luck can both be easily compensated for makes the game lack something essential, IMO. YMMV.

If 2e was meant to be a narrative path system, the inclusion of save or die effects means it failed at it.

I guess you missed the GM advice about not having the "die" part mean actual death.


RC

 

[the Jester]

If 2e was meant to be a narrative path system, the inclusion of save or die effects means it failed at it.

Not at all. It just means that there's more to the narrative than just "roll some dice".

As a hardcore, hammer-swinging, tpk-inducing, merciless rat bastard dm, I have to utterly disagree with your "mean dms get fired" thinking. Mean dms get good players who appreciate a challenging game, and whiny players drop out.

 

[ferratus]

@Gentleman Gamer - I have never seen a scouting mission go well before 4e, because a single failed move silently or hide in shadows check generally doomed a rogue or ranger. It was like making a save or die check against yourself. 4e had the martial practice where you spent a healing surge, and this represented time and energy invested in retrieving information about your forward position.

As for the wizard, hold person didn't work because he had too much HD, and silence 15 radius didn't work because he had a rod of absorption or one of the half-dozen spells that negate incoming hostile magic.

But yeah, skillful playing will reduce some of the negative effects of save or die, or bad dice rolls. But no matter how skilled you are, you are still going to have events when due to bad luck the party goes from full resources to almost none in a single encounter that went very badly... especially when save or die is involved. You cannot prevent it all, so you need a magic item to restore yourselves, a DM willing to look the other way while you run back to a safe haven, or the ability to restore yourself because of the game system. Your cleric after all, is a duck.

 

[ferratus]

I also think some of you have to realize that not everyone is spoiled for choice in players. I like in a rural area myself, so I'm confident I know every D&D player within an hours drive, because I've gamed with all of them. So I don't have the luxury of only choosing the hardcore. Nor has anyone ever left because I wasn't hardcore enough about killing their characters on random rolls of the dice.

 

[carmachu]

Gotta say my experiences vary greatly from yours. Never had an combat last an hour+; definitely used tactical positioning & teamwork prior to 4Ed. And so forth.

I'm not saying you're "doing it wrong," just observing that this is a great illustration of "YMMV."

Our 3.x combats vary in length, some long some short. But have to agree that yeah we used tactial teamwork and some position as well(actuallly we still do).

 

[ferratus]

[MENTION=428]RaveN[/MENTION] - Please do get me that quote, because I think you are not understanding me correctly. In my mind at least, it was always because bad luck can destroy all of your resources. The whole thing that got this thread derailment going was arguing about healing surges.

Since healing surges are used up the more encounters you do, why would I be arguing that it is a solution to a party continuing on with low resources? Healing surges only make sense as a solution to sudden bad luck in a single encounter.

 

[carmachu]

Okay, okay, I give. You guys are obviously much more efficient than I am. I cannot imagine a game running with such quick precision that everyone speaks in short hand, and everyone instantly jumps to attention at the sound of their initiative being called.

We use something different, a "intiative DM". DM has his list of iniative, and so does one of the players(in this case me). So we have who is up, and I'm reminding the next person "your on deck" to use a baseball term, so he's already thinking ahead while teh first player is actually going.....and so on.

Speeds things up, and keeps folks focused.

I've had 2e games where yeah, you have serious players and then loligagers, some who are reading something else, or were sorting through magic cards or something when combat is going on. Its not teh edition, its the players. In the current 3.5 game I'm in, the players are on their toes. In the old 2e games back in the day, not so much.