Dragon Editorial: Fearless

[Wolfspider]

(quick aside) One of the best things I did for my D&D game was importing Unisystem's Drama Points system---essentially unchanged.

(I especially like the part where I pay you a couple of DP for permission to completely screw over your character)

Not surprisingly, I did this as well, calling them Action Points so my d20-loving friends wouldn't think they were too alien but basically using them the same way (including the payout to players for screwing them over).

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

 

[I'm A Banana]

None of these things are really addressing Lizards expectation though, nor do they provide for any new results to an encounter that we didn't have before

Well, the part of Lizard's post I specifically called out was this:

I want to feel the game will be *hard*. Will be *challenging*. That we'll need every single one of those per-encounter and at-will powers just to get through a gang of orc bandits, and we'd better know our synergies and our tactics well in order to do it. I don't want to rely on dumb luck, I want to know that my decisions and choices -- during character build and in-play -- are what will make the difference 90% of the time, with luck being the icing on the cake, as it were.

I'm saying that it seems like 4e design will be less extreme (you won't have to test yourself to the limit against every gang of orc bandits, allowing for more encounters per day), and that encounters you win based on character strength (you will have to use your powers to win in most encounters, because it's fun to do that). This means that corageous play (using your powers in a situation where you might not absolutely need to, taking a risk that you might get wounded, etc.) is encouraged without having the "you die" consequence. Instead, you take some damage, use some resources, have a more difficult encounter later, etc.

 

[Doug McCrae]

IMO, the shift away from paranoid dungeon survival towards reckless insanity is one of the best things D&D has encouraged.

I agree. I've been playing rpgs 25 years and I've never once seen a game suffer from players being too reckless. Bad things can happen to the PCs, sure, but at least they're interesting. Many times however I've seen the fun get sucked out of games from too much caution. It leads to a much slower paced game than I prefer.

I've encountered a few people who think the 'check everything for traps' approach is how the game should be played. Thankfully they are a tiny minority.

 

[Wormwood]

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Building bridges one post at a time.

 

[Wolfspider]

Courage has nothing to do with going off to play your PSP because your character rolled a 1 on a poison needle trap.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Doug McCrae]

Well, in my last 3e campaign, I killed a PC every three sessions for over 80 sessions. Half of those were to failed saving throws. I stuck to RAW as hard as I could, barring my own incompetence in interpreting rules.

I dunno about anyone else, but, that's just too friggin' lethal. That's not heroic at all. You couldn't be heroic in 3e if you stuck to core, because the game was just too lethal. I wouldn't blame anyone whatsoever for taking the absolute most safest choices each and every time.

Yes, 3e is too lethal, particularly at very low and mid-high level. It's a legacy issue from old school OD&D and 1e. High lethality worked there because everyone had 5 PCs each plus henchmen. You didn't put a lot of work into a character's personality and background. There was no real sting to death, it was a minor inconvenience, especially with raise dead spells in the game too.

These days, people put a lot of work into their PCs. They are complex, both mechanically and story-wise. Multiple PCs per player don't really work as a result. The death rate is still high but now death is a big deal because you've actually lost something that mattered, both emotionally and in terms of the amount of work invested by the player. I found that to be the biggest problem running 3e - the delay when someone's PC dies.

Post old school solutions were to fudge the die rolls so PCs survived. Or give them free True Resurrections "just this once, 'kay". I'd prefer it if the rules made it harder to die.

 

[Wormwood]

Okay, I lol'ed.

I am so going to be fired.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, 3e is too lethal, particularly at very low and mid-high level. It's a legacy issue from old school OD&D and 1e. High lethality worked there because everyone had 5 PCs each plus henchmen. You didn't put a lot of work into a character's personality and background. There was no real sting to death, it was a minor inconvenience, especially with raise dead spells in the game too.

It also helped that it took about five minutes to go from blank notebook paper to brand new character.

 

[Psion]

But Indiana Jones, in all the movies, never gets the equivalent of a rolled 1 that ends his life. Does this imply he is just "lucky", or that the (not actually existing, but let's pretend it does) rules contain enough wiggle room so that there is no single "1" that can lead to certain death?

The dangerous traps in Indiana Jones make us believe that they should be modelled as "save or die" traps in D&D, but the fact Indy never fails any of his saves and checks (and dying from it) could also indicate that they actually are not, and are better modelled by a different, more forgiving mechanic.

Off course, a movie character isn't really following any game rules, but if there were some, they would certainly be giving several options to avoid dying (at least if you're the hero, and we're not talking about some dark tragedy where everybody dies and never achieves his goals)

The question is what does the game aim to model, which story does it tell? Does it model situations in where you survive if you're lucky, and die if not? Or does it model situations in where you will probably survive, unless you make too many or too big errors?

4E leans to the latter. That's exactly what I want. But people that have grown up with (or in?) Tome of Horrors and the previous D&D editions might have different expectations (and prefer them, too.)

FWIW, I grew up with ToH, but don't share the adoration of it. As I've commented about elsewhere, it's the materhorn of dungeon gaming, not the model for all dungeons.

I find people's comments to the tune of "finally! no more deathtrap dungeons" mystifying, considering that the frequency of such dungeons plummeted when the "save or die" poison damage was supplanted with ability damage. It's like people are clapping because we are solving a problem that has already been solved.

Turning my attention back to this...

The dangerous traps in Indiana Jones make us believe that they should be modelled as "save or die" traps in D&D, but the fact Indy never fails any of his saves and checks (and dying from it) could also indicate that they actually are not, and are better modelled by a different, more forgiving mechanic.

I don't know about anyone else in the audience, but I relate to movies in a way different than I relate to games, and I find that most arguments that posit "if this movie ran like a game it would be a bad movie" while fundamentally correct, don't really make the intended case that makes the game in this case bad.

Y'see, the problem for me is that I see a big rock rolling at a person and I thing "that would squish me if it was on me", and necessarily think that Indy could get hurt. In a way, I am relying on the visual medium evoking my personal perception of the situation to tell me that Indy is in imminent danger, which is exciting.

In the game, however... I have a much more present measure of danger. I know what would cause my character to die. Failing a save could, as could a large application of HP damage. When I see a beholder in the game, I know I am in imminent danger, because I know that I will be repeatedly exposed to danger in its presence. Like Indy, I should run (unless I have a real good reason not to.)

So yeah, where am I getting with this? If you want to elicit fear and excitement from me over the fate of, make me believe my character is mortal. That doesn't mean filling a dungeon with bodaks and beholders. But do let me know there are things out there that can kill my character. Occasionally reinforce the point by taking one.