A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

Heh, true, but I remember Cargorn (14th? level ranger lord in 1e) doing exactly that, leaping off a 200' cliff in order to engage his enemies. At that level the damage was relatively inconsequential (well, he did have vampiric regeneration, so the demons at the bottom of the cliff were just more 'juice'). I think the consequences of absorbing a few 1000 hit points from demons was far more significant than the fall...

So, yeah, its rare. I think that's why the abstraction survives. Within the paradigm of the original D&D game hit points were not really that problematic, and realism wasn't high on the agenda, beyond a sort of basic correspondence with reality that let players reason. In more modern games this is not so, and most post-D&D games with a story focus either use some kind of system which doesn't produce these odd results, or moves the focus entirely away from whether or not you live or die.

Right. Realism isn't all that high on the agenda. It's prevalent, but as prevalent as it easily could be if D&D tried. That's why some of us make changes to make D&D a bit more realistic.

You can see this in 4e, where hit points are clearly separated to a larger degree from the narrative than in previous editions (at least explicitly). You basically have some hit points, then you have an injury state (bloodied) and then some more hit points, and then you become incapacitated (but that simply involves a mechanical set of game states, how it is narrated is really up to the participants, the game simply provides some adjectives which establish a baseline default approach). The "non-lethal attack" rule makes this even more clear, as there is no distinction of 'stun points' or something like that vs 'real' damage. Only the intent of the final 'killing' blow matters. Note how even a fireball can be 'non-lethal'.

It's things like this that kept me from playing 4e. If you want to try and swing a sword so as to not kill someone, that's fine by me. That fireball explosion, though, that's not under the control of the PC, so there's no way they could keep that from being lethal damage.

This is part of the general movement of 4e away from strictly traditional play structure and concepts. Healing Surges add another layer such that hit points really are more of a plot device than anything else. Once the fight finishes up everyone gets patched up and is good to go again, much like the way a Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone gets a bandage slapped on that gunshot or whatever and then theatrically winces a bit now and then but isn't really disabled in any plot-significant sense (so, you could skin something like being dazed or slowed in a future combat as something like "the enemy grabs hold of your wounded arm and your vision goes red as you scream in agony" if you wanted, though few players are really interested in that level of detail).

There was a game that came out in 1989 called It Came From The Late, Late, Late Show. You played B actors in a B movie that the DM(Director) was running. You had stats and a bunch of skills from Climbing to Tactical Weapons, and you just played. Since you were playing B actors, you got bonus points for being "appropriately stupid." i.e. "I heard something. You guys wait here and I'll go check it out." You also had a fame rating from 1-100 that went up as you played, and if things got too hard you could stalk off the set. If you rolled percentile under your fame, the Director had to cave into your demands. The last mechanic that I remember was that in-between every scene you got make-up which gave you back hit points, so that after a few scenes that bullet wound or broken leg wasn't bothering you all that much. It was a fun game.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm boggling at why Max has spent sooooo much effort trying to get through to people who aren't even listening to him-

A BALL!


Edit- oh. I see he's found someone who's actually listening. That took a long time.

Some are. They may not agree with me, but I'm having a nice discussion with some of them. Others have no desire to discuss in good faith, and it shows in their responses to me.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm trying to encourage him to leave this thread and spend his time in more friendly conversation, instead of wasting his time defending the way he plays.

The 5e forum has been slow lately. I miss Max.

If you have a thread you want me to look at, link it. I'll take a gander.

 

[pemerton]

PCs don't fall off cliffs often. It's rare, really.

Maxperson, yoiu keep making claims like this, tossing them off casually as if they're self-evident. But they're not. In my 4e game, characters falling off cliffs is really quite frequent. One character picked up a pair of winged boots to help deal with the problem.

 

[Hussar]

Maxperson, yoiu keep making claims like this, tossing them off casually as if they're self-evident. But they're not. In my 4e game, characters falling off cliffs is really quite frequent. One character picked up a pair of winged boots to help deal with the problem.

But, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], would you say that this is a regular occurrence in every D&D game you play/run or just idiosyncratic of that one campaign, among the dozens (if not more) that you've run/played over the years? Because if it's the latter, and I suspect it is, then, yeah, saying falling off cliffs if fairly rare in games is among one of the few points that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has made in this thread that I actually agree with.

 

[pemerton]

It's things like this that kept me from playing 4e. If you want to try and swing a sword so as to not kill someone, that's fine by me. That fireball explosion, though, that's not under the control of the PC, so there's no way they could keep that from being lethal damage.

(1) How do you know the fireball is not under the control of the character?

(2) Suppose that the fireball is not under the control of the character - why is that a reason that the player can't determine some of the consequences of an effect that was brought into the fiction as a result of his/her decision (ie to have his/her PC cast a fireball)?

 

[pemerton]

But, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], would you say that this is a regular occurrence in every D&D game you play/run or just idiosyncratic of that one campaign, among the dozens (if not more) that you've run/played over the years? Because if it's the latter, and I suspect it is, then, yeah, saying falling off cliffs if fairly rare in games is among one of the few points that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has made in this thread that I actually agree with.

I haven't done a survey, but 4e is clearly designed around the idea that vertical movement (both up and down) will be a meaningful aspect of play: it has climibing rules, flying rules, prominent advice on what height of cliff is a good fit for what level of PCs, etc.

An analogue to falling, in this context, is the proverbial character chained to a cliff while a dragon breathes fire on him/her, and that is one of the examples (the other is suffering a poison bite/sting) that Gygax uses (in his DMG) to explain how saving throws should be thought of in the fiction.

One of the most classic of D&D modules is G2, and vertical movement (in the Rift) is a big element in the first half of that adventure (at least as I experienced, both in AD&D and in my 4e adaptation).

I guess my point is that I don't think these are corner cases that the hp rules somehow have trouble coping with. The game system treats them as core, and that fits with my own play experience.

EDIT:

To put it another way, here are two different contentions:

(1) At my table, PCs falling down cliffs is a pretty rare corner case, and so the contrast between being pushed and jumping doesn't really come into play, and so we're able to treat a player deciding that his/her PC jumps as metagame rather than "in character"/actor stance.

(2) In D&D, PCs falling down cliffs is a pretty rare corner case, and so the contrast between being pushed and jumping isn't really a part of D&D play, and so a player deciding that his/her PC jumps is metagaming rather than playing "in character"/actor stance.​

If someone asserts (1) I've got no reason to doubt their sincerity. And I've played games in which "gentlemen's agreements" keep some rule or odd consequence off the table although it's implicit in the system itself.

But [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] appears to be arguing (2). Just as he argues (for instance) that it is common sense that a 1st level dwarf PC should know all about forest trails, but it would be metagaming for the player of a 1st level desert nomad to impute to his/her PC knowledge of trolls. Presenting these claims as universal, or as obvious truths about the game, and the way it is meant to be played, is (in my view) ridiculous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm trying to encourage him to leave this thread and spend his time in more friendly conversation, instead of wasting his time defending the way he plays.

The 5e forum has been slow lately. I miss Max.

hehe, Max has been, IMHO, obstinate for a LONG time. IIRC he was posting back on the WotC forums back in the 4e days too, am I right [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]? I seem to remember a lot of similar discussions. He's very consistent though, and I certainly think its good that he knows how he wants to play. I do suspect, often, he might be a LITTLE stuck in his ways, but I'd be the last person to call that a fault, or else I'd be in deep trouble myself!

So, yeah, I kind of feel like we've beat the 'Max doesn't see it that way' horse to death here. I've kind of poked people about taking it in other directions, but it can be hard. I'd also say that sometimes you build your strength by pounding on brick walls!

And don't worry Max, I don't take myself too seriously...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mad arab, HoTL is acronym for? Did you post a document of your 4e hack game? I'd like to read it.

HoML, yes "Heroes of Myth and Legend" though I haven't really expounded much on the myths and legends aspect in the rules (beyond some nomenclature and the fairly fantastical levels of power which Mythic characters should presumably achieve). Anyway there is a PDF here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDqxN9WDlPUruYUIuDZo1YJcMcEqMSLm/view?usp=sharing which you are welcome to peruse and since I put an OGL on it, you can even steal whatever you want from it

 

[Numidius]

HoML, yes "Heroes of Myth and Legend" though I haven't really expounded much on the myths and legends aspect in the rules (beyond some nomenclature and the fairly fantastical levels of power which Mythic characters should presumably achieve). Anyway there is a PDF here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hDqxN9WDlPUruYUIuDZo1YJcMcEqMSLm/view?usp=sharing which you are welcome to peruse and since I put an OGL on it, you can even steal whatever you want from it

Thanks. Wow, almost 400 pages!