Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

[hong]

The DM is not the enemy but the supposedly impartial arbiter of the rules.

Did anyone say otherwise?

He ought to scale things according to challenges that are in proposition 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.

Look: a 20th level party facing off against an EL 20 encounter is not any less deadly than a 5th level party facing off against an EL 5 encounter. In fact, it's MORE deadly, because the damage output of each of those 20th level combatants (and their foes) is an order of magnitude greater than for their 5th level counterparts. This makes the margin of error that much smaller, so if you screw up even just a little bit, or the dice go bad on you, things can go pear-shaped very quickly.

This has nothing to do with DM partiality or evilness or whatever. It's the inescapable result of taking the creatures in the MM and fashioning encounters that are of an appropriate difficulty to challenge a high-level party. The fact, plain and simple, is that if you get into fights on a regular basis at those levels, you _are_ going to lose people. And if you're _not_ losing people, chances are it's because you're not getting into fights on a regular basis, in which case combat mechanics probably aren't that important to you anyway.

Now, it's true that I'm assuming the party is fighting monsters with CRs about the same as their own level; thus, for example, a 10th level party might be fighting fire giants, or a 15th level party might be fighting big dragons and demons, etcetera. I think this is perfectly reasonable. It's entirely possible that a group routinely goes into battle against big hordes of lowly 1HD mooks, in which case PC mortality might not be such a problem. But AFAIK, this is the exception rather than the rule.

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.

Well, there's nothing wrong with fashioning such an encounter. However, was there an _expectation_ that the PCs would just fall over instead of putting up a fight? Because as I said, most of the DMs I know wouldn't try to pull something like that, or would expect the characters to fight.

IIRC, the only time I've been in a "surrender or else" situation was a few years back, when we all got captured by slavers and shipped off to the Vilhon Reach. However, that was because the DM wanted to run some adventures set in that region, it was the fastest way to get us all there, and we were looking for a change of scenery anyway. Not exactly your typical setup.

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?

So I'm a bit trigger-happy tonight. I blame the coffee.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hong, you're on a roll with your example/counter-example references. Keep up the good work, guy.

To respond to the original question: No.

For me, the idea of instant death doesn't factor into the fantasy of a combat. Fantasy isn't linked to mortality (and I don't think anyone is arguing that PCs don't die in 3e!) at least for me. As a player, as a DM, the fantasy of it is entirely a product of the in-game description.

DM1: The orc hits you. You take 20 points of damage.

(Now this isn't very interesting. The fantasy/heroics/suspension-of-disbelief is entirely lost.)

DM2: The orc charges toward you screaming. He takes a 2-handed grip on his war club and brings it crashing down on your shield so hard you can feel it in the soles of your feet. You take 20 points of damage.

(Here's what I want. Whether my PC has 21hp or 210, it doesn't matter. This is the type of scene that keeps the fantasy alive for me.)

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Nathal,

If you want to play that type of D&D, then remove magic items. A 15th level fighter may still beat the 15 warriors with daggers, but with no magic, the fighter will still have to worry about the fight.

Keep the magic super low and you can emulate to a degree the type of D&D you want to play. It is that simple.

Your story would be utterly stupid if the fighter died to those 15 warriors. I can understand you would like the fighter to actually fear for his life, but in fantasy books as well as games, the best fighters can usually plow through an army of henchmen troops.

If you want him to have a hardtime doing it, just give out no magic armor.

15th lvl Ftr in Chainmail with a 14 or higher Dex: AC: 17

Now a group of 1st or 2nd level fighters flanking a high level figher in regular chainmail is still a rough fight for that fighter, especially if he has no magic sword and no strength enhancing items. try it and see the fight goes. You should also limit feats that seem to out of whack like Great Cleave if you want it to go well.

This type of D&D is very possible, you just have to be willing to remove magic from your campaign. Not very hard to do.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that the biggest problem when it comes down to high-level characters is the suspension of disbelief.

In order to challenge high-level characters, you've got to have powerful opponents. Makes sense, no? But any one of these high-level opponents, even the mid-level "mooks" that they employ, could have cleaned up on the PCs when they were lower level. It has the effect of making everything that the PCs did when they were lower level somewhat irrelavent.

You can overcome this with adventure design, but you have to plan for it at the beginning of the game.

 

[Nathal]

Re: Re

Nathal, This type of D&D is very possible, you just have to be willing to remove magic from your campaign. Not very hard to do.

Hey man, you like so many others have totally misunderstood me.

I was agreeing with part of what scarymonkey said, while at the same time agreeing with much of Hong's take on the matter. My example of a GM who dealt with the issues of critical hits by requiring actual real-world knowledge of swordplay was just an illustration of a solution I didn't personally enjoy.

I agree with Hong that coffee effects the course of these threads in a major way!

 

[Kevin O'Reilly]

I like hit points, when they represent fatigue and skill. Knowing where to be in a sport or fighting (skill) usually means that the event is actually less fatiguing.

That said, we've been using a system similar to RWs noted earlier.

Con is now "Wounds): small = 2/3; Large 11/2; Huge 2; Col...you get the idea.

When a character falls to 0 hit points all remaining damage is Wounds. The character can continue to perform actions on a Fort save DC = 12+(2* Any Wounds).

Loss of wounds effects skill and combat ability

If they succeed the save they are considered fatigued (-2) all skills, combat etc.
At 1/2 wounds they are exhausted (-6).
If they fall to below 5 they may only perforfm partial actions (which of course I'll have to rewrite in 3.5, sheesh).

Now this lets lower level characters live a little longer. The downside is that any critical does wound damage equal to the critical modifier. Sneak attacks also do wound damage equal to the "x' modifier. The amount of wounds is cumulative and the above fatigue rules apply. Under this rule the character can be wittled away until they are so exhausted they cannot fight, irregardless of hit points remaining.

When wounds are sustained a character must make a Fort DC = 12+ (2*wounds taken for hit) or be stunned for 1 round.

Armor prevents wound damage instead absorbing the damage. When wounds=armor provided the armor is destroyed, or at least considered useless. Magic armor always provides an armor bonus equal to its magical bonus unless the damage is inflicted by a weapon with a higher magical bonus

Hit points are regained at level per hour of rest and Con a 1+con bonus per week of rest. Cures grant their spell level in wound curing and a Paladin can lay on hands for Charisma bonus per day.

Magic also causes hit point loss = 2*spell level if a spellcasting check = 15+(2*spell level) is failed.

 

[drnuncheon]

There are other reasons to surrender to the wimpy first-level warriors surrounding you than just fear of death, you know. Little things like not wanting to become a hunted outlaw for killing the town constabulary matter to most people, unless they're chaotic evil. (And if they decided to swing first and ask questions later, they'd be making a big step towards it in my book.)

It's hard to compare with literature, though, because there are no game rules in the Conan books. If Robert E Howard thought the story demanded it, Conan could have hacked through the circle of guards and escaped.

J

 

[Nathal]

There are other reasons to surrender to the wimpy first-level warriors surrounding you than just fear of death, you know. Little things like not wanting to become a hunted outlaw for killing the town constabulary matter to most people, unless they're chaotic evil. (And if they decided to swing first and ask questions later, they'd be making a big step towards it in my book.)

It's hard to compare with literature, though, because there are no game rules in the Conan books. If Robert E Howard thought the story demanded it, Conan could have hacked through the circle of guards and escaped.

J

I'm going to attempt at new form of debate. First I'll list all of the points with which I agree, and then the points on which I disagree. I hope this avoids confusion.

A1: "There are other reasons to surrender to the wimpy first-level warriors surrounding you than just fear of death, you know." Yes, that is true. I wish I had more players that thought like that.

A2: "Little things like not wanting to become a hunted outlaw for killing the town constabulary matter to most people, unless they're chaotic evil". Again, I agree. I wish more of my players had actually paid attention to the "good" part of their alignment descriptions in the past. I LOVE it when a character makes decisions based on his concept rather than his hit points.

A3: "It's hard to compare with literature..." I agree that role-playing games are different than books due to the interactive nature with open-ended outcomes to situations.

D1: "...because there are no game rules in the Conan books". I disagree. The ideas that DMs use to create plot devices come from movies and literature. The game transforms those ideas into an open-ended scenario where the players must decide the final outcome, but those plot elements remain inspirational and common.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

D1: "...because there are no game rules in the Conan books". I disagree. The ideas that DMs use to create plot devices come from movies and literature. The game transforms those ideas into an open-ended scenario where the players must decide the final outcome, but those plot elements remain inspirational and common.

But I believe the point he was trying to make is that authors don't have to be consistant. Sure it has to be believable, but in one book Conan might surrender to the mooks, while in another, if the author decided it served the plot, Conan could ignore his earlier reaction and cut through the mooks to freedom.

A DM, on the other hand, is restricted to consistency. He can have the mooks dangerous enough to cage Conan, or he can have the mooks harmless enough that Conan freely cuts through their ranks. But the one thing he can't do (and remain a good DM,) is have the mooks be a threat in one instance, and a pushover in another. Even with Rule 0, he has to follow his own rule.

So you can't really compare our dear D&D to literature, because they follow different rules, even if the one inspires the other.

 

[Nathal]

So you can't really compare our dear D&D to literature, because they follow different rules, even if the one inspires the other.

I agree that in a novel it is the author who decides the outcome and in the RPG it ought to be primarily the decisions of the players (assuming the fairness of the DM) that determine the outcome of dangerous situations.

But fiction does in many ways inspire the average Dungeon Master, and the comparison was not intended to be between ideas of "plot" versus the open-ended nature of the typical adventure module. All I'm claiming is that plot elements used in adventures are derived from plot devices used in fantasy fiction (or history, or mythology, etc.). Attempts by the antagonists to ambush and/or capture the PCs are common happenings in role-playing games, as well as in history, whether those attempts are successful or not was not the core of the claim.

This observation was in context of the discussion that it is difficult to successfully capture PCs in a single round by way of intimidation when the players are prone to meta-gaming. That is true, it was pointed out, insofar as the players ignore alignment or character concept, or "realistic" consequences (the word in quotes dependant on sub-genre as pointed out by Hong). What do I mean by "intimidation"? I obviously don't mean the skill. I am referring back to the original examples of having a knife held at ones throat or a crossbow point-blank at ones chest when the would-be attacker has the initiative and/or surprise. Hong pointed out that the expected outcome depends on the sub-genre, pointing out the Kung Fu "reality" is different than a low-magic, gritty campaign setting.

Hmmm. How can I word this any more succinctly? I'll make an attempt:

It is difficult for a DM to employ the relatively common plot device of "capture (arrest, bust, detain, nab)" against a group of high level characters when their players possess a strong tendency toward meta-gaming, coupled with a reckless disregard for alignment or in-world moral consequence. This fact tends to annoy DMs who hope for a "realistic" response on the part of player-characters when common sense would dictate surrender or defeat due to being surrounded, outnumbered, and cornered with ranged weapons aimed steadily at their heads. However, as many have said, the hit-point system allows heroic characters with a level advantage to circumvent realism, hacking through a legion of guards, outnumbered or not.

One way to get somebody to surrender in the first round in D&D is by threat of instant death (magic spell or or overwhelming difference in CR vs. character level). This reason can certainly be abused by the DM! In cases of low level town guards attempting to arrest high-level characters...such surrender is very unlikely, UNLESS the players feel it is within their character concept to lay down their weapons. Whether this poses a problem for the DM depends on the kind of game he wishes to run in terms of deadliness.

Is that better explained? I don't think I'm saying anything that is new or a single thought that hasn't been expressed a hundred times before.