Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[BryonD]

I concurr completely. This game is about having fun.

I agree completely. The game is about having fun. However, to some of us "fun" involves a hell of a lot more than the mini battle game portion of experience.

For those of us more interested in the being part of a different kind of world, being engaged in the activity and consequences can be a ton of fun for the player, even if that consequence takes his character out of the action for some period of time. On the other hand, having the world be contrived to never take the player out of activity, regardless of how logic dictates they should be (Hey guys, that medusa just looked at me. I'm feeling slower. And gee, in a few rounds I might even turn to stone. But the good news is this world is built to keep me in play and I get to keep going and even have really good odds of shaking this whole thing off on my own anyway) is the exact opposite of fun.

I'm not saying one was is wrong. But I am saying that there are very very different ways of doing things. Just as 3E fails for some people to keep the mini battle engaging, 4E fails for some people to create a remotely satisfying world model. And when the combat system trumps the world function, that is going to happen.

It is ok to see it either way. But don't think for a second you have a monopoly on what the definition of "fun".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I agree completely. The game is about having fun. However, to some of us "fun" involves a hell of a lot more than the mini battle game portion of experience.

For those of us more interested in the being part of a different kind of world, being engaged in the activity and consequences can be a ton of fun for the player, even if that consequence takes his character out of the action for some period of time. On the other hand, having the world be contrived to never take the player out of activity, regardless of how logic dictates they should be (Hey guys, that medusa just looked at me. I'm feeling slower. And gee, in a few rounds I might even turn to stone. But the good news is this world is built to keep me in play and I get to keep going and even have really good odds of shaking this whole thing off on my own anyway) is the exact opposite of fun.

Doesn't really sound like "opposite" to me. Different, yes, but not opposite. Action still have consequences in either system. And have you ever experienced the above scenario in a game situation? The idea of a characters body slowly succumbing to the effects of terrible magic, desperately fighting it off and well knowing that he might be dead (or a stone) if he can't take down his opponent fast enough or if his allies can't help him fast enough? Do you really think that is not a fun scenario that provides a lot of tension?

Do you think it is even a worse scenario then just dropping dead / turn to stone in a split second? Isn't the scenario also a little more fun actually if the party wizard puts out a Scroll of Stone to Flesh to negate the effect, showing off his cleverness and being prepared for such a situation?

 

[Fifth Element]

The idea of a characters body slowly succumbing to the effects of terrible magic, desperately fighting it off and well knowing that he might be dead (or a stone) if he can't take down his opponent fast enough or if his allies can't help him fast enough? Do you really think that is not a fun scenario that provides a lot of tension?

This is a really good point. I would think this provides plenty of tension, and it's in-game tension. What happens to your character in this situation depends largely on what he and his allies are able to do in-game, not on a single die roll (which is a completely metagame concept).

 

[Fifth Element]

Maybe something like this (3E rules):
Hold Person: As your enemys attempt to cloud your mind fails, you renew your willpower and your self-confidence - gain 3d8+5 temporary hit points and a +2 moral bonus to attacks and damage for 1 minute.

Destruction: Evil forces tries to corrupt your body, but with a feat of strength and willpower, you overcome it and send it back to your foe - your opponent must immediately make a save against his own spell or suffer its effects. (or 1d6 points of damage per your level)

Interesting thought. I like where this could go.

If the same effects applies when NPCs resisted the PCs spells, it would certainly make life more interesting for a wizard specializing in such spells.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I've gotta ask - how long are your combats going on for? If your players are getting noticeably bored after rolling their one, either your players have some serious ADD, or your combats are running for a very long time.

Know what happens at our table when someone rolls the one and gets killed? We laugh about it, finish the combat, and get him revived, while cracking some jokes.

But I guess tabletop gaming is dead serious.


I still just don't see the issue. Sometimes someone goes down. If it's down to the dice, then it happens. Laugh about it and move on. I guarantee that you'll hate 4e just as much if you take everything in it SO SERIUS too. It's not about the game. It's about a playing style.

 

[Fifth Element]

I've gotta ask - how long are your combats going on for? If your players are getting noticeably bored after rolling their one, either your players have some serious ADD, or your combats are running for a very long time.

It's 3.5. Large-scale fights can take a couple of hours sometimes. It happens.

Know what happens at our table when someone rolls the one and gets killed? We laugh about it, finish the combat, and get him revived, while cracking some jokes.

But I guess tabletop gaming is dead serious.

Please. It's not about being serious. It's about the didn't-save-so-he-sucks-for-this-battle player not being able to participate in the game, which is ostensibly the reason for being there.

I still just don't see the issue. Sometimes someone goes down. If it's down to the dice, then it happens. Laugh about it and move on. I guarantee that you'll hate 4e just as much if you take everything in it SO SERIUS too. It's not about the game. It's about a playing style.

The issue that some have has been explained again and again, and it's not just playing style. It's not about coming down to the dice, it's about coming down to a single die roll. Many people find that sucks the fun from their game, because they find playing the game, not watching others play (even if they can crack jokes while doing it), to be fun.

 

[Runestar]

So what now? 4e resolves this problem of PCs being taken out permanently due to a failed save, so everyone should be happy, right?

 

[hornedturtle]

This would seem to be a bigger problem the smaller the party of adventurers you have. Say your playing one on one. every save or die becomes a save ot TPK. Of course if they fail the player dosen't have to wait around while the others play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But I guess tabletop gaming is dead serious.


I still just don't see the issue. Sometimes someone goes down. If it's down to the dice, then it happens. Laugh about it and move on. I guarantee that you'll hate 4e just as much if you take everything in it SO SERIUS too. It's not about the game. It's about a playing style.

No. Imagine, say, playing a card game. Let's say it takes one hour to complete one game. Imagine there was something in the game where you come out with any card you like. The next step is drawing a random card from a card deck. For each card you can come out with, the deck contains one card that if it is drawn, takes you immediately out of the game.

Do you think this is a good mechanic? Do you think players will enjoy this very much?

 

[pemerton]

What if there was something to win with "Save or Die" or "Save or Sit"?, I wonder...

Imagine a spell like Hold Monster or Finger of Death - if there was some way to redirect the spell to the attacker after a succeseful save, that could be interesting. Of course, those spells flavor doesn't really make describing this happening easy.

Maybe something like this <snip examples>

What you describe is closely analogous to "death flag" or stakes rules: the PC becomes vulnerable to death because and only because the player is prepared to stake his/her PC's life in return for some advantage for the PC (of course that's all metagame talk - in the game, if the advantage isn't enough to protect the PC from death then presumably it's just bad luck that the PC gave everything s/he had to give in one last shot and nevertheless died).

4e gets into the neighbourhood of this with some of the aspects of skill challenges, but it's something that there is certainly scope to develop within the context of the game (healing surges are one obvious resource that might be used as a stake in 4e, as the skill challenge chapter obliquely acknowledges via the sidebar on p 76 of the DMG).