Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[mmadsen]

It isn't a choice of "this fight is trivial" vs "this fight is deadly".

Who and what are you arguing against? Did someone propose such a dichotomy?

Healing is not "rampant"...

If characters heal after virtually every combat, healing is rampant. Certainly healing magic is a limited resource, and husbanding such resources is part of the game. It "works" in a gaming sense when you need to fight enough monsters in close succession that your healing resources are taxed.

Healing up after a fight doesn't negate the risk of dying in one fight.

Of course not. But if you're facing off against inferior foes (e.g. town guards) and you have plenty of healing magic, you have no fear of those guards. That's how a Hit Point system works.

We've been listening to people complain that they'd like a combat system where players have an incentive to play their characters more reasonably, where combat resembles cinematic reality, if not necessarily "real" reality, where heroes win fights, but don't necessarily pick fights, presumably because there's some risk to them.

If your point is that the game works just fine as a beer-and-pretzels hack-em-up when the DM strings together the right number of encounters at the right EL to challenge the party, I'm not arguing against you. That's the game you enjoy. I'm not trying to stop you from playing it.

I would like to discuss how different combat systems affect player behavior though.

 

[Nathal]

I have created a game system that deals directly with this hit point issue. It is a fast, narrative style system. Anybody interested in taking a peek and providing feedback and/or helping me to work on it please contact me at nathal@comcast.net

 

[hong]

Who and what are you arguing against? Did someone propose such a dichotomy?

Pease not to be disingenuous as well.

If you want players (and thus characters) to know they have no chance of losing to lesser foes

The only circumstance where characters have _no_ chance of losing to lesser foes is when you take the level disparity to extremes.

If characters heal after virtually every combat, healing is rampant.

Twaddle. By this definition, a campaign where PCs fighti one combat a month, and then spend the rest of the month healing up, is one where healing is "rampant". ONLY if combat is frequent, and healing ability increases to match, AND players are willing to make use of it, can it be said to be rampant.

And in any case, so what? Even if healing was not rampant, any game that features a reasonable frequency of combats will have a loophole to allow PCs not to get killed all the time.

Certainly healing magic is a limited resource, and husbanding such resources is part of the game. It "works" in a gaming sense when you need to fight enough monsters in close succession that your healing resources are taxed.

Why do you put "works" in scare quotes?

Of course not. But if you're facing off against inferior foes (e.g. town guards) and you have plenty of healing magic, you have no fear of those guards. That's how a Hit Point system works.

And it's good. If you don't like it, don't play D&D.

Oh, I forgot. You don't play D&D anyway.

We've been listening to people complain that they'd like a combat system where players have an incentive to play their characters more reasonably,

I think my players play their characters very reasonably indeed. If you disagree, well, that might be because your definition of reasonableness is influenced by how you don't play D&D.

where combat resembles cinematic reality, if not necessarily "real" reality, where heroes win fights, but don't necessarily pick fights, presumably because there's some risk to them.

No, because these people are often control freak DMs who don't grok what D&D is about, and can't stand to have players mess up their beautiful plotlines.

If your point is that the game works just fine as a beer-and-pretzels hack-em-up when the DM strings together the right number of encounters at the right EL to challenge the party,

No, my point is that the game works just fine as an emulation of heroic fantasy where characters are larger than life, and shouldn't be expected to react lesser threats in the same way as normal people would. Not that I expect you to understand this.

I would like to discuss how different combat systems affect player behavior though.

Why not play some games instead?

Do you play ANY games at all, as opposed to proselytising on UNseboards?

 

[LostSoul]

No, my point is that the game works just fine as an emulation of heroic fantasy where characters are larger than life, and shouldn't be expected to react lesser threats in the same way as normal people would.

Yep. Like you've said before, it works to make characters super-heroes.

 

[hong]

Yep. Like you've said before, it works to make characters super-heroes.

After careful consideration, I have decided to switch my comparative paradigm to wuxia. Less likely to make people's heads explodiate.

 

[Black Omega]

To be fair, the difference between the characters in Stormriders and various superheros is purely genre, the powerlevel and powers are pretty similar.

 

[hong]

To be fair, the difference between the characters in Stormriders and various superheros is purely genre, the powerlevel and powers are pretty similar.

Heh. Have I mentioned that I saw _Stormriders_ and couldn't figure out what the fuss was about?

Although I have the VCD of _Come Drink With Me_, a seminal swordfighting film from 1966, directed by King Hu and starring a young Cheng Pei-pei (Jade Fox from CTHD). Great stuff, if you allow for the outdated special effects. Some excellent sequences showing off Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack in action there....


Hong "no, not _Cheng's_ Great Cleave, IYKWIM" Ooi

 

[barsoomcore]

Although I have the VCD of _Come Drink With Me_, a seminal swordfighting film from 1966, directed by King Hu and starring a young Cheng Pei-pei (Jade Fox from CTHD). Great stuff, if you allow for the outdated special effects. Some excellent sequences showing off Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack in action there....

Saw it in the theatre at last year's Vancouver Film Fest. Holy toledo.

I recall some review of "Crouching Tedium Hidden Dullness" saying that it featured the greatest tea room fight scene of all time. Feh.

Leaving out Drunken Master II, Peking Opera Blues and Hard-Boiled (just to eliminate the posers), Cheng Pei-Pei STILL kicks Zhang Zi-Yi's nicely-proportioned-but-still-lame-as-all-heck butt. When she catches the coins with a thrown chopstick? Who needs special effects when you have imagination?

Hey, that's like D&D -- cool stuff with just imagination, no special effects.

Well, D&D played properly.

 

[Gothmog]

The thing that is beyond me is why so many people on here seem to take umbrage when someone mentions they want more realistic combat in D&D. While its easy to shout "If you want realism, don't play D&D!", its also pretty narrow-minded. The D20 system is SUPPOSED to be able to handle many different types of rules modifications and tweaks, so instead of being closed-minded, why not try to offer some constructive suggestions rather than blindly defending the status quo.

I'll admit that D&D as written is good at heroic fantasy, but sucks for a more realistic, gritty style of play. The reason I use D&D in my gritty, dark fantasy games is because 1) D&D is the most popular RPG, and its easy to find players 2) the rules are relatively simple, and allow focus on the game rather than stats, and 3) its well supported. THAT IS WHY I PLAY D&D. Other systems handle combat more realistically (GURPS, Ars Magica, heck even the non D20 Deadlands), but players are harder to come by for those games, and they lack the volume of cool support material that D&D does. That said, what can be done to make D&D combat more realistic and less prone to metagaming? Here is what my group has done.

1) Use a variant WP/VP system. WP equal character Con for medium sized, 1/2 Con for small, 1/4 Con for Tiny, and 1/10 Con for Dim and Fine. Large get x2 Con, Huge x4, Gargantuan x8, and Colossal x16. Characters with a d10-d12 hit die gain one WP per level, d6-d8 gain one every 2 levels, and d4 gain one every 3 levels. Characters are less fragile at lower levels this way, but more fragile at higher levels.

2) All damage from a critical hit is applied to WP, but no multiplier is figured in. However, if the multiplier for the weapon is x3, an extra d4 WP is inflicted on a crit, and x4 get an extra d6 WP. Also, if you take a critical hit, you have to make a Fort save with a DC of damage taken or suffer some effect. We have worked out a chart of possible crit hit effects which is too lengthy to post here, but at the very least the character will suffer some stiff penalties for a few rounds. Even if the save is made, the character is considered exhausted for that round, and his Init is reduced by 5 following that hit.

3) Limit the speed with which characters gain VP/HP. Characters running around with more HP than sense are a major problem in most games, so we cap HP- equal to the max that could be rolled on a hit die for that class. So the max HP a d8 class could gain per level, regardless of Con is 8 hp, and a d10 is 10 HP.

4) Finally, all classes recieve a damage bonus to weapons they are proficient in equal to 1/3rd BAB (whether melee or missile). This takes into account that an experienced character can make a more telling blow, but not to such a degree that it overpowers feats or magic.

Remember, any rules you apply to players also apply equally to monsters. So far, these rules have worked wonders to reduce the "charge in and hack" mentality, often trying to find ways to minimize/avoid combat, and the characters routinely come up with good tactics knowing that fighting is dangerous.

 

[barsoomcore]

While its easy to shout "If you want realism, don't play D&D!", its also pretty narrow-minded. The D20 system is SUPPOSED to be able to handle many different types of rules modifications and tweaks, so instead of being closed-minded, why not try to offer some constructive suggestions rather than blindly defending the status quo.

First let's note that D&D is not equal to d20. D&D is a game based on the d20 system. As such, D&D includes certain mechanics designed to emulate big honkin' heroic combat.

Certainly the d20 system is flexible and handles very well all sorts of styles -- once it's been customized for whatever genre you want to play. As D&D has been. But if you don't want to play big honkin' heroic combat, don't play D&D. Make up a new game -- like you have. Like I have.

My narrow-minded objection is not against people who want to talk about ways of modifying the rules in order to play different styles, but people who complain that a ruleset designed for one type of play doesn't well support a completely different style of play. I don't bother giving out constructive criticism because I'm not interested in designing a grim n' gritty game. I just get cranky when people blame rules for their own lack of imagination.