D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

[smathis]

Basically because this is a game, not a narrative?

So flashbacks are largely unfullfilling when the outcome is a foregone conclusion in a game environment wherein chance and choice alters the potential outcome?

And since Conan was never really a Zero, it's not a good illustration of such a device, even if it was effective in a game?

Ah. But Conan was a zero at some point. We're just not introduced to that point of his history.

Some groups might find flashbacks and stuff unfulfilling. That's cool. Playstyles vary.

But the difference between having a rule for flashbacks versus starting everyone at Level -1 is that those players who don't like flashbacks can ignore them.

It's not possible for those players who dislike starting at Level -1 to ignore that portion of the game, assuming the GM decides everyone starts at Level -1.

While I understand the appeal of the latter, I think the former is more flexible.

 

[Fifth Element]

And that prevents the DM from ignoring the crit?

If there was nothing wrong with the rules, you wouldn't have to ignore the crit just to make sure a 1st-level character survives.

 

[med stud]

Look at the NPCs in ThirdWizards monster- compilation, especially at the human guard. A level 1 character would have trouble fighting two guards. Maybe he could fight three guards. If they started to flank and use their encounter powers, the first level character would be in trouble.

It doesn't scream powerful to me, considering the genre. Compared to 3e a starting character is powerful, compared to the low level opponents provided, he/she is about as powerful as before.

 

[Dausuul]

So, the DM didn't ignore the crit after they saw the monsters were a bit overpowered for your party?

Overpowered? We're not talking about an overpowered encounter here, we're talking about a properly balanced encounter where the PCs had bad luck and died. Which can happen very easily at 1st level in 3.X, because a single crit can take you from full hit points to bleeding out, or even flat dead.

Take a typical party of first-level PCs against two orc warriors. Orcs are CR 1/2, so that's a balanced encounter, right? We'll say the wizard has cast one spell today and has one casting of sleep left.

Round 1: Orcs win initiative. First one charges the 13-hp fighter and crits for 19, taking him to -6. Second orc attacks the 9-hp cleric and hits for 9, taking him down to 0 (staggered). On his turn, fighter bleeds to -7. Cleric heals himself back up to 5, since he can't do anything else without going into negatives. Wizard casts sleep at the orcs; both make their saves. Rogue flanks with cleric, attacks and misses.

Round 2: One orc attacks the cleric and hits for 6, taking him down to -1. Other orc moves to attack wizard and misses. Fighter bleeds to -8, cleric bleeds to -2. Wizard steps back, shoots a crossbow bolt at the orc attacking him, and does 2 damage. Rogue steps up behind that orc and attacks for 5 points, dropping it to -2.

Round 3: Remaining orc attacks rogue and misses. Fighter bleeds to -9, cleric stabilizes. Wizard shoots a crossbow bolt, misses. Rogue hits, but has no one to flank with (wizard is using a ranged weapon and so cannot threaten) and only inflicts 3 damage.

Round 4: Orc attacks 8-hp rogue and hits for 11, then moves to engage wizard. Fighter dies, rogue bleeds to -4. Wizard sees the writing on the wall and withdraws.

Round 5: Orc hurls javelin after fleeing 6-hp wizard, hits for 7 damage. Fighter is dead, all other PCs are unconscious and the wizard and rogue are bleeding out. Even if the DM is merciful and has the surviving orc try to take them captive, there's a good chance that either the wizard or the rogue will die as well before the orc can make an untrained Heal check.

This isn't a particularly unlikely scenario. Yes, the orcs got lucky (especially on the first round, with the crit and the two successful saving throws) and the PCs rolled badly, but there's nothing implausible here--I've certainly seen worse runs of luck plenty of times at the gaming table. The PCs' tactics were not bad, if not spectacular.

In other words, the DM in question seems more interested in applying the rules evenly than making sure people were having fun. Again, not a problem with the rules, just their application.

This is a silly way to design a game. If you need DMs to fudge rolls to keep PCs alive at low levels, why not just build a game where PCs have decent survivability at low levels? Same result, but now you're not relying on DMs to know that you have to fudge to make things work properly.

Easier than trying to balance 0-level class abilities would be a 'no crits for monsters' ruling until the party was around 3rd level or so. Similarly, arrows only do 1hp each until the party is a bit stronger.

Or, a rule that gives 1st-level PCs more hit points. Much simpler. Which, funnily enough, is what 4E is doing.

 

[Henry]

This is a silly way to design a game. If you need DMs to fudge rolls to keep PCs alive at low levels, why not just build a game where PCs have decent survivability at low levels? Same result, but now you're not relying on DMs to know that you have to fudge to make things work properly.

I consider the swingy nature of combat a feature, not a bug. In other words, if there is a chance that bad combat luck can spell the end of a party, then it works well for me, and emulates something I see in life quite frequently. I'd almost prefer to see such swingy nature in the mid-levels, too, not just the low and high ones.

Fortunately, there are plenty enough editions that do this, and one in particular is covered by OGL, so it's not going away any time soon.

 

[Dausuul]

I consider the swingy nature of combat a feature, not a bug. In other words, if there is a chance that bad combat luck can spell the end of a party, then it works well for me, and emulates something I see in life quite frequently. I'd almost prefer to see such swingy nature in the mid-levels, too, not just the low and high ones.

Sure, if that's what you want. I was just pointing out that one should not design the game on the expectation that DMs will ignore the rules; if one doesn't want 1st-level combat to involve a lot of PC deaths, it's far more sensible to make PCs more durable, rather than blaming the DM for not fixing the flaws the designers put in the system.

Obviously, if one does not consider high PC mortality to be a flaw, the question does not arise.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So, the DM didn't ignore the crit after they saw the monsters were a bit overpowered for your party?

In other words, the DM in question seems more interested in applying the rules evenly than making sure people were having fun. Again, not a problem with the rules, just their application.

Easier than trying to balance 0-level class abilities would be a 'no crits for monsters' ruling until the party was around 3rd level or so. Similarly, arrows only do 1hp each until the party is a bit stronger.

I'm still not seeing a problem with the rules themselves, just with the DMs, and sometimes players that don't want to retreat.

There are times when four ogres means 'run', not 'bonus XP'.

Kids gloves rules are fine if you want to play that way, but my group appreciates the threat of death throughout the PCs careers (the danger of death is a large part of what makes combat fun, IMO). Just not insta-death. I can't think of anything less fun in an RPG than losing your character in a scenario that you had absolutely no say in or control over.

At level 1, unless you win initiative against an ogre, you're as good as dead. Sometimes running is indeed the answer. Unfortunately the low PC hp and high monster damage of 3.x often made this virtually impossible unless the entire party won initiative (unless we're playing evil characters, most of us are not too keen on the whole leaving friends to die thing- we feel it's very unheroic).

They were goblins with bows, not ogres (the CR 1/3 goblin from the MM). A bow does x3 damage on a crit, doing 1d6 normally. Rolling max, that's 18 total damage, which was more than enough to kill my level 1 wizard outright.

My DM couldn't just ignore the result since my group rolls dice out in the open, including the DM. We could all see that it was a nat 20.

It wasn't my DM that was the problem (he's a fantastic DM who has allowed unconventional tactics and benefits during boss battles that were going south), it was the system. I feel pretty safe saying this since it looks like, if the same scenario occured in 4e (goblin crits a level 1 wizard with an arrow on the first round of combat), I'd have deducted the hps, maybe used second wind on my next turn, and the campaign would have continued without interruption (for me). The scenario killed me in 3.x. The scenario wouldn't have (outright) killed me in 4e. One of these seems to me to be better balanced in this respect than the other.

Saying that the DM can ignore the system when it doesn't work does not make for a good system. Shouldn't the rules of a game system work toward the goal of fun, even when applied "evenly"? DM fiat is fine when necessary, but I'd consider this a case where less is more.

 

[Henry]

Obviously, if one does not consider high PC mortality to be a flaw, the question does not arise.

What's "high mortality?" 10%? 20%? 50%? To me, as long as it doesn't go over 20% (one death per every other game, let's say) then I'm fine with it.

I know people keep talking about 4e still being lethal to the unlucky, but my (admittedly limited) play experiences of it haven't borne it out.

 

[Scribble]

What's "high mortality?" 10%? 20%? 50%? To me, as long as it doesn't go over 20% (one death per every other game, let's say) then I'm fine with it.

I know people keep talking about 4e still being lethal to the unlucky, but my (admittedly limited) play experiences of it haven't borne it out.

I think the difference is Henry that in previous editions the character could die with little to no warning that what you're doing is a bad idea... The new edition I think seems to want to give some warning that if you continue along the current path.. you're gonna get walloped.

Also... in previous editions making characters was often a much faster process.

Now, when you die it takes a bit longer to make a dude... so the death consequence is much higher.

Plus I think that the majority of players just don't like dying. WOTC saw that and changed the game to meet the majority.

Shrug.

 

[Henry]

I think the difference is Henry that in previous editions the character could die with little to no warning that what you're doing is a bad idea... The new edition I think seems to want to give some warning that if you continue along the current path.. you're gonna get walloped.

I'm still waiting to see just how lethal some of the things monsters can do are borne out in higher levels; the giant example is one where this imrpesses the point on me. The giant doing 1d10+5 per attack is not really any more than what a hobgoblin spellcaster or artillery of ten levels lower can do! The only difference is that the giant hangs around for a few more rounds, which is what effectively ups its damage output.

Also... in previous editions making characters was often a much faster process.

Now, when you die it takes a bit longer to make a dude... so the death consequence is much higher.

Plus I think that the majority of players just don't like dying. WOTC saw that and changed the game to meet the majority.

Shrug.

While true in 3e (Good Lord was this true at higher levels!) The streamlining for characters makes it quicker to make a new character of X level, much moreso than 3e, meaning a death can be bounced back from quickly. But you're right in the "players just don't like dying" thing. It's a cultural shift that I still have trouble with, learning to play in that Primordial epoch when you already had your next character brewing in the back of your mind while playing your current one, anyway...