Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[Nathal]

I knew a GM that had two different levels of monster or NPC. One was "cannon fodder" and the other was "full player status". The cannon fodder monsters and NPCs would fall before the PCs like wheat before the scythe. Or he would create cannon fodder that would be apparently tough, but he would know in advance that the PCs would win. Thus he never kept stats for the cannon fodder creatures and NPCs. He allowed critical hits with instant death effects based entirely on the player's battle tactics descriptions, and the more knowledgeable the player was in the ways of combat the better his chances were for a dramatic victory.

Monsters and NPCs of "full player status" would follow the rules more closely, have all of their stats written down. Yet these characters were notoriously difficult to harm, often recurrent. Still he allowed insta-death effects, but only if he deemed the description of the means adequate to the task. This set up a situation where it was competing knowledge rather than dice rolls determining outcomes.

As a player in such a game, I felt that either I killed everything too easily or my own personal knowledge of "realistic" combat was inadequate. Or that if I could not "wow" the GM with my intricate details on each strike of the sword that I was at a disadvantage.

As a DM I hated to run a game that way because when random chance is taken out of the picture---and if I can actually anticipate whether the player characters are going to win or loose in almost every situation---then I get very bored. Fair battle, fine, but predictable?

The instant-death problem seems to annoy DMs far more than players for this reason. Many DMs get bored if they know what is going to happen, and I think this contributes to the problem of the "knife at the throat" dilemma. They want the player-characters to have to contend with real danger, which becomes harder and harder to do at high levels. Attempts at capture is a favorite plot device of DMS, and yet capture without the aid of magic is almost impossible against high level fighters who would rather cut their way through opposition.

I have never known a player who had less fun because he could hack his way through a band of would-be kidnappers or bounty hunters trying to truss him up like a pig. The complaint for DMs comes most often, I think, when they wish to create an exciting potential for capture. Because capture is usually carried out at knifepoint, it requires the PCs to feel as if they are in real danger of dying due to resistance. Beyond 1st level this situation is harder to create. It is admittedly difficult to be in that frame of mind when ones fighter character has 100 hps or more (or even less for that matter).

Realism is right out the window with HPs and always has been. One has two options (probably more than two, actually, but it is 2 AM and this is the best I can do right now). Either prepare for the eventuality that all attempts to capture and detain PCs require complete subduel (charge!), or allow for insta-death effects for called shots when initiative is won (look out!). If the latter idea is used the players will often resent being intimidated into capture or getting killed with a lucky called shot on a surprise round. If the "cannon fodder" versus "full-player status creature" idea is used then real chance is usually out the window and the whole game becomes more of a LARP relying on actual combat "expertise".

Clearly, it's a mess. One cannot expect the players to respond "realistically" to a capture situation because the DM has them surrounded by bowmen. The default rules speak to a very different outcome...

 

[hong]

The instant-death problem seems to annoy DMs far more than players for this reason. Many DMs get bored if they know what is going to happen, and I think this contributes to the problem of the "knife at the throat" dilemma. They want the player-characters to have to contend with real danger, which becomes harder and harder to do at high levels.

No. What becomes harder and harder at high levels is keeping characters ALIVE. In the high-level (15th-16th) campaign I'm in, we've been averaging about one death every session for the last couple of months. And that's with a sympathetic DM who doesn't go out of his way to throw fiendish traps and impossible situations at us. If it wasn't for the generous availability of true resurrection, we'd never make any progress at all.

At high levels, you have fighters who can deal 100+ points of damage per round, wizards and clerics throwing off instakill spells, and rogues who can sneak attack for 200+ points of damage (albeit not all the time). The monsters are capable of much the same.

Attempts at capture is a favorite plot device of DMS,

Not for most DMs I know.

It is admittedly difficult to be in that frame of mind [not being invincible] when ones fighter character has 100 hps or more (or even less for that matter).

Good heavens. Try playing in a high-level campaign before uttering something as foolish as that.


(edit: left out a 'not'. Most important, that.)

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Depends on the players and DM IMO. Many of my players do insane actions that no smart combat vet would do, like rush into combat without regard for their own well-being. I am very good at tactics though, and I usually punish my players badly for playing stupidly.

I expect military type tactics from my players, especially after they have been fighting together for a while. My enemies generally respond with military type tactics, and I hate having to dumb them down because my players are clueless.

The rules do support military-type tactcs in the game, and are actually very well thought out in 3rd edition.

If you want to incorporate some semi-realistic tactics that I recommend do the following:

1. Metagame: Advance on a creature with reach slowly using defensive or expertise.

In game: Your fighter moves up warily on the large creature
prepared to defend himself.

2. Metagame: Place your cleric behind your fighter for healing out of the reach of the opponent, if possible. Otherwise defensive cast healing spells.

In game: The priest chanted and moved with the fighter, the healing power of his god kept the fighter alive as the fighter endured the powerful blows of the enemy warrior.

3. Metagame: Have your wizard cast wall of force to reduce the size of a passage or room so that that enemies cannot advance on you at the same time.

In game: the wizard erected a magical wall of force while the warriors formed a living wall of steel at far end of the magical wall where a small opening existed to prevent the advance of the enemy troops.


The main thing you cannot do when devising D&D tactics is think magic is 'cheesy'. Magic makes D&D tactics more versatiile. If they had it in the modern day or even in man fantasy novels, the fantasy armies would probably be employing such strange tactics.

Make sure your DM maps out the battle. It is very difficult to run an interesting battle without a map of some kind that shows position.

Thinking outside the box is very important to interesting battles.

 

[Nathal]

No. What becomes harder and harder at high levels is keeping characters ALIVE.

The DM has control over the difficulty of challenge in a game, and smart players can avoid death in most situations for their characters if they learn when to cut and run or learn to prepare.

At high levels, you have fighters who can deal 100+ points of damage per round, wizards and clerics throwing off instakill spells, and rogues who can sneak attack for 200+ points of damage (albeit not all the time). The monsters are capable of much the same.

Whatever. Any decent DM can control the challenge of his campaign so that the "mortality" rate is increased or decreased according to taste and group player style. The art of running a fair campaign requires more than proficiency at number crunching.

Not for most DMs I know.

How many do you know? You're telling me that situations of ambush and potential capture is not a common plot device that troubles DMs running games for higher level characters?

Good heavens. Try playing in a high-level campaign before uttering something as foolish as that. [/B]

Maybe if you weren't so pretentious you'd learn something. Try having a single unarmored 15th level fighter with a knife surrounded by 10 1st level guards with swords (or crossbows) and chain mail who demand that he give up his sword or be slain. Try it. The outcome is predictable. "Realistically", no one man could survive such an attack. He would surrender or be killed.

 

[Nathal]

Re: Re

I expect military type tactics from my players, especially after they have been fighting together for a while. My enemies generally respond with military type tactics, and I hate having to dumb them down because my players are clueless.

I agree with you, but those kinds of general combat tactics were not the sort of descriptions I was talking about. I guess I was unclear. The players I am speaking of would stand up and act out every sword swing...nearly LARPing.

Basically in such a game as I described you could attempt to behead your foe in a single strike (without a vorpal sword), but only insofar as you could impress the GM with your expertise in actual swordsmanship, demonstrating with fake swords exactly what maneuever would be used (in slow motion). This is, for me, too extreme. It may be more "realistic", but the HP system is abstract for a reason, and is not very well compatible with a specific hit-location system where realsitic and bloody results follow.

 

[hong]

The DM has control over the difficulty of challenge in a game,

That's not a very original way of saying "play the monsters dumb". Which is in fact what sometimes happens in our group, because if the DM DIDN'T do that, we be dying a helluva lot more than we do.

and smart players can avoid death in most situations for their characters if they learn when to cut and run or learn to prepare.

Beyond a certain point this becomes irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that high-level characters should NEVER get into fights.

Whatever. Any decent DM can control the challenge of his campaign so that the "mortality" rate is increased or decreased according to taste and group player style. The art of running a fair campaign requires more than proficiency at number crunching.

That's not a very original way of saying "ignore the books".

So you've never actually played high-level D&D, yes? I can tell.

How many do you know? You're telling me that situations of ambush and potential capture is not a common plot device that troubles DMs running games for higher level characters?

D00d, you're the one who used the implied universal quantifier:

Attempts at capture is a favorite plot device of DMS,

You made the assertion, you back it up.

Unless, of course, "DMS", rather than being a typo for "DMs" as I originally thought, is actually the initials of your own specific DM. In which case, your assertion is probably perfectly correct, and I withdraw EVERYTHING I SAID about DMS.

SORRY, DMS! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, MATE!

Maybe if you weren't so pretentious you'd learn something.

Are you trying to get into my sig?

Try having a single unarmored 15th level fighter with a knife surrounded by 10 1st level guards with swords (or crossbows) and chain mail who demand that he give up his sword or be slain. Try it. The outcome is predictable. "Realistically", no one man could survive such an attack. He would surrender or be killed.

That depends on the colour of the sky in the reality you refer to.

For every example, there is an equal and opposite counterexample. In _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_, a single unarmoured girl (not even a man) is surrounded by dozens of armed fighters who challenge her to a fight. She proceeds to wipe the floor of the tavern, and the surrounding street, with them.

THIS is high-level D&D. If you don't like it, stick to low levels, or don't play D&D at all.

 

[Nathal]

BTW, I did not use the word "invincible" when referring to the attitudes of higher level characters. Hong interpolated those words because he is apparently incapable of reading in context.

I implied that it is difficult for most players to justify their high level characters' surrendering to a gang of common town guards (think 1-3rd level guards), outnumbered or not, aimed shots or not. When a DM wants high level characters to "realistically" surrender to a gang of lower level guards or ambushers (or whomever is attempting to capture) then he is expecting them to ignore the advantage they gain through higher hit points.

I mentioned some DMs allowing a bypassing of hit points by demonstrating "superior knowledge", but I said to hell with that! D&D is not a competition in who has spent the most time on the battlefield hacking at each other with wooden swords in SCA tournaments. It was mentioned in response that battle tactics in a wargaming sense is important, and I totally agree that it is fun to hone ones skills in that aspect.

 

[Vysirez]

Maybe if you weren't so pretentious you'd learn something. Try having a single unarmored 15th level fighter with a knife surrounded by 10 1st level guards with swords (or crossbows) and chain mail who demand that he give up his sword or be slain. Try it. The outcome is predictable. "Realistically", no one man could survive such an attack. He would surrender or be killed.

Actually I have to disagree with that. It might not be likely for a person get survive that but I do believe it's possible. 10 1st lvl fighters are going to get seriously tangled up trying to get to one person to attack him. I feel it's entirely possible for one person to kill a couple of them while he breaks the circle and then bottle the rest up so that he's only fighting a couple people at a time. So "Realistically" it is possible and it's even more believable if you are looking at heroic fantesy where the players are almost expected to do things like this.

 

[Nathal]

Beyond a certain point this becomes irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that high-level characters should NEVER get into fights.

The DM is not the enemy but the supposedly impartial arbiter of the rules. He ought to scale things according to challenges that are in proportion to the power and experience of the group. If they play it smart they are more likely to live, and if they are totally reckless...then their characters will probably die. It is simple. That does not mean playing the monsters or NPCs dumb...just make sure the enemy does not have a gross advantage over the PCs, according the guidelines given. You wouldn't have a 20th mage fight a 5th level adventuring party would you? It's called game balance.

But CR considerations were not the main focus of this thread. The question concerned typical character reactions to any foe(s) with a dagger, crossbow, or bow readied and aimed and winning initiative. Characters with higher hit points are less likely to surrender in such situations, figuring they could take a few hits. If a character had an elven archer standing before him ready to fire a glowing arrow of eldritch power into his face the reaction would likely be different.

That's not a very original way of saying "ignore the books".

No, not usually. There are guidelines such as Challenge Rating and encounter level to aid, plus the DM can know his players preferences in the sort of adventures they enjoy and the level of hack & slash, etc. What the heck are you talking about, "ignore the books"? The balance is built it, though not as as straight-jacket, and certainly not as a pure and absolute rule (CR is ballpark). I only ignore the book when it says something that I disagree with in a broader sense.

So you've never actually played high-level D&D, yes? I can tell.

As if there were only one way to play high-level D&D, or D&D in general...as if there were no spectrum of style. You are spouting a bunch of rhetorical garbage tonight.

D00d, you're the one who used the implied universal quantifier You made the assertion, you back it up.

Hey man, put up a poll if you're that curious. I've played with dozens of GMs, most of whom employed situations wherein there was some danger of capture if defeated in combat. Within those situations it was not uncommon to be surrounded and warned, "drop your weapons and surrender or pay the consequences"! The same is seen in books and movies all of the time. It's fairly self-evident.

For every example, there is an equal and opposite counterexample. In _Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon_, a single unarmored girl (not even a man) is surrounded by dozens of armed fighters who challenge her to a fight. She proceeds to wipe the floor of the tavern, and the surrounding street, with them.

Did I say there was something wrong with the unrealistic nature of D&D? NO, I DID NOT. Good god man, who gave you a wedgie? The "reality" of the typical D&D world is anything but realistic. That is part of why I like the game...because it is fantasy. Why do you argue a point on which we agree?

THIS is high-level D&D. If you don't like it, stick to low levels, or don't play D&D at all.

High-level D&D does not necessarily equal a constantly high mortality rate among player characters...unless that is what the DM designs. If it were any other way then that would represent a flaw in design.

 

[Nathal]

Actually I have to disagree with that. It might not be likely for a person get survive that but I do believe it's possible. 10 1st lvl fighters are going to get seriously tangled up trying to get to one person to attack him. I feel it's entirely possible for one person to kill a couple of them while he breaks the circle and then bottle the rest up so that he's only fighting a couple people at a time. So "Realistically" it is possible and it's even more believable if you are looking at heroic fantesy where the players are almost expected to do things like this.

You are misunderstanding what position I am taking on this issue, but at least you are polite about it.

...imo, the fighter in this example would win (almost) every time, unless the 1st level fighters became outrageously lucky. Thus he would have little reason to surrender to capture in the first round of combat.