D&D 1E 5e Play, 1e Play, and the Immersive Experience

[Lanefan]

Although it may be getting off-topic, I wonder, why would you want falling to become dangerous for a high-level character?

The same reason I'd like to see a lot more things become dangerous for a high-level character: to make them mortal again. If I wanted to play supers I'd find a Marvel game.

If you're playing a high-level character, like Beowulf, the you can laugh at a dozen warriors with spears pointed at you, because you know with relative certainty that they can't actually do you any real harm (at least, not anytime soon). Why should such a powerful being be afraid of a mundane threat, like falling? At that point, if a fall could easily kill you, then it would drag you down out of the power fantasy.

Beowulf is in my view considerably beyond simply being 'high level' and in game terms would be deep into epic, if not on his way to divinity. I prefer a flatter power curve, where the dozen spear-carriers on a good day could pose a threat to the high-level guy that'd be worthy of his attention.

Keep in mind also that death at high levels isn't usually much of a headache as by then most parties have raise or even resurrection capabilities in the field. (though I also prefer that death have some lasting aftereffects on revival - 1e's loss of a Con point works well here)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The same reason I'd like to see a lot more things become dangerous for a high-level character: to make them mortal again. If I wanted to play supers I'd find a Marvel game.

Okay, but why would such a mundane threat be so potent against such an epic character? Why not use negative-energy vortices, or something else befitting their power level?

Going back to the concept of immersion, I can buy that I'm a super-hero with incredible durability who can resist spears or falls, or I can buy that I'm just some guy who needs to be worried about mundane threats. It's weird if I'm nigh-invulnerable against spears and fire, but still need to worry about falling.

I prefer a flatter power curve, where the dozen spear-carriers on a good day could pose a threat to the high-level guy that'd be worthy of his attention.

Is there an edition of D&D where that is the case? I don't have much experience with anything before 2E, but I'm aware of a rule about fighters getting one attack per level against chump NPCs.

Beowulf is in my view considerably beyond simply being 'high level' and in game terms would be deep into epic, if not on his way to divinity.

That makes sense, then, I suppose. If anyone noteworthy is above level 20, then it makes sense that level 20 wouldn't mean much. It's just unfortunate that a level 20 wizard can do so many amazing things, while a level 20 fighter is still just a dude.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Immersion is something you create at the table, by role-playing, by sharing the creative experience, by engaging with the world, by not breaking character, by how "drawn in" by the play at the table you are.

Maybe for comparison, movies would be a good example. Movies use cameras, microphones, sets, CGI, actors, training, scripts, very methodical elements (and there are also different approaches to movie-making, but they all rely on some similar underlying elements). But what REALLY makes for a good movie is how well these things are put together to craft an interesting and engaging story. There are some poorly made movies that are quite good, and there are some high-quality movies that are quite bad.

I don't think the system holds much bearing here. I think "immersion" is something the players at the table create, not the system.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does a fall from 100 feet cause 10d6 damage, while a fall from 110 feet cause instant death? Do you tell your players what the rule is, so that their characters know how to act?

Well that’s a kind of tricky question. I think that by not telling them, that’s what makes the characters know how to act. Any character should not want to ever fall from a height over 20 feet. Unless it’s like a “this building is about to explode so we have to jump” kind of scenario.

So no, I don’t tell them the threshhold. Why should they know? They’re cery likely not to even know the exact height in most situations. They’d be estimating.

In the real world, I believe that the lethality of falls spikes incredibly at about 30 feet or so....so my threshhold is much more in line with that. The PCs are heroes, so some leeway is given, and I always allow them some attempt to save themselves. But you know what? It hasn’t come up. My PCs don’t allow themselves to fall from any significant height.

If it was just surviving the fall, then it would be a good example of alternate physics, but it wouldn't be cartoon physics in the sense that I was getting at. I was talking about how he doesn't fall until he looks down; or how he can be standing on a cliff, while sawing a wooden plank in half (with the roadrunner on the other end of the plank), and when he finishes sawing, it causes the cliff to fall while the plank remains suspended in mid-air.

Taken all together, sure, it’s utterly ridiculous. But honestly....falling 100 feet and taking a little damage and then walking away is really just as ridiculous as those other things.

It does happen.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16313217/...survives-free-fall-landing-bush/#.XCG6hVxKiUk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-435377/The-man-fell-12-000-ft---survived.html

Sure, every now and then there’s a bizarre story like this. Doesn’t mean I want such an extreme exception influencing my game.

 

[Yardiff]

Extreme exceptions should not be the norm, at least the worlds I prefer to play in they aren't.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Taken all together, sure, it’s utterly ridiculous. But honestly....falling 100 feet and taking a little damage and then walking away is really just as ridiculous as those other things.

Only if you're talking about normal, flesh-and-blood humans. It's perfectly reasonable and expected, if you're talking about the sort of high-level demi-god who can take a dozen arrow hits without flinching. I doubt that Gilgamesh would flinch from falling 100 feet.

Of course, if you narrate those arrows as doing anything other than actually inflicting physical damage, then you might not even be talking about superhuman durability. If you're finding some way to narrate around being hit by arrows, then you may feel equally compelled to narrate the fall as less impactful, and that may require more work.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My argument is weak because it should be obvious. Why do I care about taking things seriously? You might as well ask why it's important that nobody cheats. It's an obvious self-truth. You shouldn't need to ask.

You don't answer a question by telling the other person they shouldn't need to ask. I am asking. The only self-truth here is that what you're calling an obvious self-truth obviously isn't.

When scholars invoke "self-truth", it's usually a fig-leaf for either a definition or a personal preference. And what you're talking about sure isn't definitional. For that matter, even if you're inclined to dispute that it is, a definition is much more akin to a personal preference than it is to an objective truth (that's why they're so often found together like this), so it wouldn't get you very far.

But I'm getting sidetracked. The point I'm trying to make here is that the very form of your own argument ought to be a red flag to you that you're trying to make something objective out of something totally subjective. Not to belabor it, but your very first words are, "My argument is weak.." Really examine what you're telling yourself there.

A role-playing game is not a story, though.

What an extraordinary claim. The first sentence in the 5E PHB is, "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery."

I would disagree that their brain is following the same internal processes. The likelihood is much higher that they are simply mimicking certain behavior, based on their external observations. They act that way because they don't understand, rather than because they understand too well.

On what do you base this assessment of likelihood? Do you understand how they think? Do you understand how Wile E. Coyote thinks? Do you understand both of them well enough to judge them dissimilar? I strongly suspect that the answer is "no" to all three questions. So maybe rather than assuming mental deficiency in others where it happens to be convenient for your case, you ought to try engaging with these different playstyles more charitably.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You don't answer a question by telling the other person they shouldn't need to ask. I am asking. The only self-truth here is that what you're calling an obvious self-truth obviously isn't.

If you need to ask, then I have nothing to say to you, because your expectations are so far askew as to be irrelevant.

Yes, you could play a role-playing game without taking it seriously; but if you are, then you've already chosen to forsake immersion, and are thus outside the purview of this thread.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If you need to ask, then I have nothing to say to you, because your expectations are so far askew as to be irrelevant.

"So maybe rather than assuming mental deficiency in others where it happens to be convenient for your case, you ought to try engaging with these different playstyles more charitably."

I wish I could say I didn't expect I would have to apply those words to myself, but honestly, I kind of did.

Yes, you could play a role-playing game without taking it seriously; but if you are, then you've already chosen to forsake immersion, and are thus outside the purview of this thread.

I think that for a thread on the topic of any given X, asking "What's the value of X?" is generally well within its purview.

I also think you're exercising some heavy-duty creativity in shutting down this line of questioning without having to answer it. Why do you think that is?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

...aaand he blocked me.