Does D&D combat break the fantasy?

Re

Also, knowledge of hitpoints versus damage potential plus magical healing = no fear of dying and foolhardy actions. For example, the fighters in my party both have around 30 hps. They know that no single attack by one of their foes can kill them (<-10hp), so they gleefully wade into combat at every opportunity. Why bother trying to sneak around when you can kill all your enemies without fear? Also with a cleric around, even getting knocked unconscious is no big deal. One cure light wounds and you're back up and fighting next round (it was only a flesh wound!).


You know, I have never experienced this myself. The monsters kick my ass if I try to wade into battle without a plan. I don't know how many times I have been squashed by a monster or a group of adventurers if I just tried to wade into battle.

Seems your DM does not put the fear of death into your PC's mind by playing encounters well or maybe your expectations make you believe every encounter should be life or death. I really couldn't tell you.

I just know that the primary DM I play with usually does a fairly good job of kicking our asses and making us feel like we barely won. I usually do the same with them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

hong said:


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.

Though you say he isn't trying he is still doing damn good work. A natural killer DM I think. Tell I said good work!

:D
 

Nathal,

I understand what you're saying. And I wasn't arguing against that. However, if you look back to drnuncheon's post, then yours, then mine, the sequence goes like this:
drnuncheon writes:

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.
So he's saying it's hard to compare literature with gaming, because there are different rules.
Nathal writes:

"...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.
Your reply states that you disagree with drnuncheon, but the explanation you give has no bearing on what drnuncheon was saying. He's saying it's hard to compare literature with gaming because there are different rules, you're saying that gaming is inspired by literature. Both are true, but your statement doesn't contradict his, which you seemed to be asserting, since you replied to it as D1, your shorthand for (I believe) a dissenting reply. Then I replied:
I write:

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.
I was attempting to illustrate drnuncheon's earlier point, to show the different circumstances between an RPG and a novel. I wasn't disagreeing with your earlier statement, that literature inspires DMs in their plot contrivances.

In short: Sorry I mucked things up, we agree on everything. :p
 

You know, I have never experienced this myself. The monsters kick my ass if I try to wade into battle without a plan. I don't know how many times I have been squashed by a monster or a group of adventurers if I just tried to wade into battle.
That's because your DM constantly puts you up against appropriate-EL encounters, encounters consciously set up to challenge your party without wiping it out.

If your DM tries to step off the Red Queen treadmill though -- that is, he stops raising the levels of the town guards and other cannon fodder -- then the system breaks down.

With Hit Points and rampant healing, the winner suffers no cost for fighting. Of course, with Hit Points and no magical healing, the winner suffers quite a bit for winning; no one escapes unscathed.
 

Nathal said:
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.
It seems like you're saying that a player who notes that his character has a wack of hit points and isn't likely to die from a single knifethrust or arrow hit is "meta-gaming". I disagree.

Hit points are a game mechanic to measure a character's readiness for combat. The more hit points you have, the more ready you are to jump into a life-or-death struggle. The less hit points you have, the more wary you are.

If a player thinks, "Hey, these clowns can't do any more than, say, 15 hp of damage if they hit me. There's four of them, so even if they all get me I'll take a maximum of 60 hp. I have 100, so there's no reason for me to be afraid. ATTACK!" -- this isn't "meta-gaming". This is a character realising that they outclass their opposition so much that they will be able to withstand even the prepared, ready-to-go attacks of their enemies.

There's no reason a naked 15th-level character shouldn't be able to take on 10 armoured 1st-level fighters and win, even if they have the drop on them. That's what, in D&D a 15th-level character is like. They are jaw-droppingly good. They are Conan, they are Jackie Chan, they are Aragorn against the orcs. They strike mortal fear into the hearts of their enemies and set entire crowds running away if they like.
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.
I humbly submit that any DM hoping for "realism" is PLAYING THE WRONG GAME! D&D is not realistic, nor is it meant to be. This is a game where the better a fighter you are, the more likely you are to survive being dropped off a cliff. Well, whatever.

There are ways to turn the D&D rules into something more "realistic", many of them posted here and there on this board (even in this thread). But this still sounds like complaining that D&D doesn't do something it wasn't designed to do.

High-level characters kick high levels of butt. If you don't want that, don't play the game.
 

hong said:
What, you mean like how Han Solo charged a squad of stormtroopers in the Death Star? If people find this "out of genre", they shouldn't be playing Star Wars. The same holds for D&D.


Ummm, this is kind of a tangent and I don't play SWRPG so I may be off base here, but Han charging the stormtroopers looked to be more of an Bluff or Intimidate check than anything to do with HP(WP/VP).

Just IMHO :D
 

Flexor the Mighty! said:


Though you say he isn't trying he is still doing damn good work. A natural killer DM I think. Tell I said good work!

:D

Thank you.

Sometimes it's surprisingly easy. Eg: a monster thats been fighting the cleric (AC 33, hp 170) for several rounds and not doing much, attacks the wizard (AC 18, hp 118) instead, and the wizard goes splat and the monster still has two attacks left over.

Geoff.
 

barsoomcore said:
Hit points are a game mechanic to measure a character's readiness for combat. The more hit points you have, the more ready you are to jump into a life-or-death struggle. The less hit points you have, the more wary you are.


Yes, I agree that's an accurate statement. ;)


If a player thinks, "Hey, these clowns can't do any more than, say, 15 hp of damage if they hit me. There's four of them, so even if they all get me I'll take a maximum of 60 hp. I have 100, so there's no reason for me to be afraid. ATTACK!" -- this isn't "meta-gaming". This is a character realizing that they outclass their opposition so much that they will be able to withstand even the prepared, ready-to-go attacks of their enemies.


You're right. I guess my problem isn't with 'meta-gaming' per se.

There's no reason a naked 15th-level character shouldn't be able to take on 10 armored 1st-level fighters and win, even if they have the drop on them.


LOL! That would be amusing! :) Of course, such a battle takes any sense of verisimilitude and throws it out the window, as events push on at "ludicrous speed", but you're right that this is not an impossible situation to imagine in D&D.

That's what, in D&D a 15th-level character is like. They are jaw-droppingly good. They are Conan, they are Jackie Chan, they are Aragorn against the orcs. They strike mortal fear into the hearts of their enemies and set entire crowds running away if they like.


I agree with you (Forgive me now as I allow my thoughts to meander in and out of this immediate point) Unfortunately, [WARNING: slight Topic Change] in my own campaigns this fact of power ascension has created a tendency toward supreme arrogance on the part of the player characters toward authority in the campaign world, no humility at all whatever the alignment may be. And yet, I am loathe to "drop them down a peg" by simply beating them senseless with a conveniently placed 25th level Justicar (or whatever). I really hate it when players force me to become heavy-handed...but what can a DM do when the characters bumptiously declare to their King that he has no authority over them and goes on to humiliate officials all over the land? I would rather have them captured and thrown in jail for a few days than to have them retributively attacked by a force that could actually kill them off! But, quite naturally, if I try to tame the mushrooming egos of the higher-level characters by confronting them with 1st level guards calling for their surrender...well, those guards will be mince-meat. I know what you may be thinking (your problem then, is your players), but hold off on that thought for a second.

[back onto topic] Think about those scenes in Star Wars when the heroes are surrounded and taken at gun point to meet Darth Vader, or when the hobbits are repeatedly captured by their foes. It is difficult to simulate situations like these in D&D unless the players happen to enjoy role-playing, or have a very strong feeling that they are totally outmatched. I won't simply declare, "they take you captive" because that violates every written and unwritten rule of DMing! Unfortunately, my own players, historically, would rather kill every last man in an good-aligned city than allow themselves to be apprehended by authorities, regardless of alignments. :o Maybe I'm just slowly realizing I've had a bunch of really piss-poor players...

I humbly submit that any DM hoping for "realism" is PLAYING THE WRONG GAME! D&D is not realistic, nor is it meant to be.


You're right. This will frustrate DMs who want gritty and deadly games with intricate hit-location rules and specific damage to body parts...unless they alter the system (which is okay too).

[/b] There are ways to turn the D&D rules into something more "realistic", many of them posted here and there on this board (even in this thread). But this still sounds like complaining that D&D doesn't do something it wasn't designed to do.
[/b]

I'm not complaining! :p I enjoy exchanging notes, and debating the finer points with fellow players, but I am not complaining. I DO think that DMs who hope to set up the classic "heroes are captured and suffer the speech of the arch-villain just before their heroic escape" will find it often very difficult to orchestrate the capture by means other than overwhelming force. Note that I use words like "often"...I don't mean to sound absolutist about all this. I would love to hear how DMs on this board set up ambushes where the villains intend to capture the PCs but do this without being too heavy-handed. What do I do? Well, I expect that PCs will not surrender in the first round unless confronted with something obviously superior (red dragon vs. 1st level party), and so count on subdual damage and other means like magic. I try not to stack the cards and never expect that the plans of the villains will be necessarily borne out. The PCs should always have a chance of escaping would-be captors.

High-level characters kick high levels of butt. If you don't want that, don't play the game.

Yep, and remember that this fact of D&D SHOULD extend also to NPCs. Called shots should not be allowed to bypass a foes hit-points. If a player insists that his character should be able to make a called shot to the head that beheads upon a successful strike, then I will extend that same courtesy to the monsters. But what's the point of that? It invalidates the whole dang spirit of the game.
 

Nathal said:
Unfortunately, in my own campaigns this fact of power ascension has created a tendency toward supreme arrogance on the part of the player characters toward authority in the campaign world, no humility at all whatever the alignment may be. And yet, I am loathe to "drop them down a peg" by simply beating them senseless with a conveniently placed 25th level Justicar (or whatever).
It's a painful problem, to be sure. You can of course just say to your players, "Hey, this is really not much in the way of how someone of your alignment ought to behave." Which is still heavy-handed, I know.
Think about those scenes in Star Wars when the heroes are surrounded and taken at gun point to meet Darth Vader, or when the hobbits are repeatedly captured by their foes. It is difficult to simulate situations like these in D&D unless the players happen to enjoy role-playing, or have a very strong feeling that they are totally outmatched.
Well, but consider this: what level were those hobbits? Or even Boromir, eventually overcome (I have to point out that he faced a hundred orc archers and managed to kill twenty before going down) -- were these 15th-level characters? I would not describe them as such. Middle-Earth just isn't a high-level campaign world, and I wouldn't use D&D rules (without immense tweaking) to model it.

One of the truths of being a DM is that you just can't replicate the dramatic moments of your favourite movies or books. It doesn't work. RPGs have their own sorts of dramatic moments, which are never of the "taken captive" variety. Dramatic moments in RPGs come when the players discover that something they thought was true isn't, or that some mystery is about to be revealed, or whatever.
I DO think that DMs who hope to set up the classic "heroes are captured and suffer the speech of the arch-villain just before their heroic escape" will find it often very difficult to orchestrate the capture by means other than overwhelming force.
But how else do you capture someone? You have to present them with such overwhelming force that they won't even bother to fight. I can't see any other way.

You also have to get them to believe that their chances of survival are improved by their surrendering. If they think the villain means to kill them anyway, why should they surrender?
I would love to hear how DMs on this board set up ambushes where the villains intend to capture the PCs but do this without being too heavy-handed. What do I do? Well, I expect that PCs will not surrender in the first round unless confronted with something obviously superior (red dragon vs. 1st level party), and so count on subdual damage and other means like magic. I try not to stack the cards and never expect that the plans of the villains will be necessarily borne out. The PCs should always have a chance of escaping would-be captors.
Why? Shouldn't the would-be captors have as much experience with these things as the PCs? Shouldn't they know exactly what it takes to lay their hands on and restrain one of these clowns? If a villain has reason to capture the PCs then they should go to town. Why send a bunch of mooks to grab hold of these heroic types? Why not get a bunch of heroic types of your own and send THEM into the fray?

I wonder if you aren't worrying too much about making things "fair". Your villains shouldn't play fair. They should cheat. They should over-estimate the heroes and send five red dragons to confront them. I would. I would send absolutely everything I had. And then I would prepare a quick and fail-safe getaway in case it wasn't enough.

Especially in a case where PC death isn't really on the line, I think you could really rev things up. I did this once to my players -- had them round a corner and there was a goddess and her vampiric legions waiting for them. You should have seen my players' faces! They couldn't believe it. They were so certain they were dead.

But of course she just wanted to talk. Heh, heh, heh.
 
Last edited:

But how else do you capture someone? You have to present them with such overwhelming force that they won't even bother to fight. I can't see any other way.
In real life, people (and animals) avoid fights -- even fights they'd expect to win -- unless they have quite a bit to gain (or quite a bit to lose). Why? Because even winning might involve getting hurt, maimed, or killed.

As I said before, escalating Hit Point totals are just one way to model bad-ass-ness (and defensive bad-ass-ness at that), and that model distinctly affects combat decisions. Other models would promote other behaviors.

With high Hit Points, you have a wide margin where you're not threatened, then a narrow margin where you're legitimately threatened but not necessarily dead. If you have 90 Hit Points, for instance, you can expect to take 20 spear thrusts. You're not the least bit threatened by 10 spear thrusts (unless you expect 10 more), and you have next to no hope of surviving 30 or 40 spear thrusts.

If, instead, the combat system gave you a 1-in-20 chance of being disabled by a spear thrust, then you'd still expect to take about 20 spear thrusts before falling -- but you'd never take it for granted that you could ignore the first 10. Also, you wouldn't be quite so guaranteed to go down after 30 or 40.

Under either system, our hero can mow down hordes of scrubs, but he'll react quite differently to a hold-up in one versus the other.
 

Remove ads

Top