Epic Fight turns into Epic Farce

[pemerton]

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.

You unfairly run together a number of features of playstyles that are actually quite distinct.

To begin: You appear to equate a particular mechanical preference - for metagame-heavy plot-protection mechanics rather than simulationist/immersion mechanics - with a particular flavour preference - for combat-heavy rather than exploration-heavy play.

But I can't see any necessary connection between the two categories of preference. I'll give examples to explain why.

Some people who like a combat-heavy game also like immersion-encouraging, metagame-free mechanics. You'll find a number of them posting on the RM forum on the ICE boards.

Some people who like a combat-light exploration-heavy game also like metagame-heavy mechanics, in which the mechanics allow the player to choose the stakes for his/her PC. I imagine some of these people play The Dying Earth (light-hearted exploration) or HeroQuest (ultra-serious exploration).

Furthermore, even looking only at those who like combat-heavy play with meta-game heavy mechanics, it's a little rude to imply (as you do) that their play is shallow. The Riddle of Steel fits this description (combat-heavy flavour and meta-game heavy mechanics), and it's self-evidently not a shallow game. There's no reason 4e need by shallow either (though it has more potential for it then TRoS, I imagine, having no obvious analogue to Spiritual Attributes).

And some meta-game free exploration-heavy play can probably be pretty shallow - I've certainly seen some 2nd ed AD&D modules that seem to fit this description.

 

[Ginnel]

The thing is 4e has decided that shooting craps is the wrong type of fun for D&D (I often wonder if this could be the bland feeling that has been expressed by some people trying the game. There's very little adrenaline rush moments in the game now.)

A point was made by Imaro [EDIT!!: that some people mention a blandness in 4th editon and a lack of that adrenaline surge]
[Original content edited out] I'm not sure what their experience has been of 4th edition, But our party of 6 has been in a few dire situations, cornered from both sides in a cave 2 of our party on the floor dying, 3 of the other 4 bloodied with the main bad guy still standing, a role of natural 20 got the cleric back up and helped change the tide of battle again.

Before this fight we walked through about 12 enemies but two tried to flee leading to a dramatic attempt by 3 of the party to stop it getting to others of its kind.

Another encounter where we were ambushed exploring some wagons ended up with my character on -4 hits with 5 ongoing damage, a character appropriately enough my characters half brother ran over to do a heal check and failed, burned an action point to try it again and suceeded, also at the end of the fight one of the last enemies we were fighting exploded in a fit of arcane energy nearly taking out a considerable portion of the party.

A third example, our well wounded paladin 0 healing surges and half hits, got taken out as he opened a door and fell to the floor the offending creature drawing his sword and threatening to kill him, a no surrender attitude from certain members of the party rushed in to him and pushed him away from our fallen comrade.

I felt all of these encounters had plenty enough tension in them due to the combat aspect, and fail to see how a save or die roll could have injected more, I personally feel that Save or Die or Save or Sit Out effects are akin to a reverse lottery ticket, there is no elation just a moan of oh dam I rolled low.
I love Roleplaying games I get to do these 3 times a week but still would be put out if one roll of the die decided on my fun for the evening, I don't get the excitement of it.

Now other people may well enjoy Save or Die effects and similar abilities but I know myself I can not condone a single die roll having such a big effect, it would be like a DM putting in a skill check in the adventure which they have to pass to survive

DM: Guys make spot checks
*hurried rolls*
"10"
"13"
"17"
"33"
"4"

DM: Ok Guys the floor opens up underneath you anyone with higher than 20 manages to spot it and jumps to the side, the rest of you as you fall into a void your bodies disintigrate, new Character time.
*players glare*

Now just because the actual save or die/save or sit out effects happen in combat doesn't make it more exciting for me.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

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

Define "large-scale." If we're talking armies, then what do you expect? D&D has never been made for big armies. Or ANY large-scale fights for that matter.

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.

Is your complaint "I died from a 1" or is your complaint "I had to sit out?" Because you started on the latter, but it seems you're switching to the former. If your complaint is the former, then, well, you've got a one in twenty chance of this happening. Odds are in your favor. Besides, doing 50+ damage all at once makes someone sit out too, don't see you complaining about that

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.

And other people don't see the problem nor do they understand why that first group of people is so adamantly against it that they shout their hate from the rooftops, because it's still just a game, and they really don't mind being able to take a breather and snarf down on the pizza.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Now other people may well enjoy Save or Die effects and similar abilities but I know myself I can not condone a single die roll having such a big effect, it would be like a DM putting in a skill check in the adventure which they have to pass to survive

DM: Guys make spot checks
*hurried rolls*
"10"
"13"
"17"
"33"
"4"

DM: Ok Guys the floor opens up underneath you anyone with higher than 20 manages to spot it and jumps to the side, the rest of you as you fall into a void your bodies disintigrate, new Character time.
*players glare*

I've got to hand you an award for this, as that has to be the biggest strawman I've seen in awhile on these forums.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Valid point.

With the 3e and 4e design paradigm of a 4 or 5 character party, it's easy to see how a few failed saves can ruin your day. So, to counter this, I offer a suggestion: abandon the design paradigm, and play parties of 8-10 characters. Play 2 PCs each if you like. Hire henches. And so on.

I mean, *the* archetypal adventuring party...the Fellowship of the Ring...had 9 people in it.

And a very recent example of how this can help: in my session this weekend, one of the characters pulled a stupid and ripped the covering off a wall the party already knew to be dangerous (it had a hypnotic effect on a failed save). 10 people in the room: 9 party members and a Cleric providing some high-powered help to de-consecrate the temple they were in. Of the 9 party members, each needing about a 10-16 to save depending on class, only one rolled higher than 8 and three rolled nat. 1's! And the one that saved was one of the last to roll; things were getting tense by this point! (the high-powered Cleric also saved, but she's about 80 years old and far too feeble to be hauling people out) A smaller party, with the same roll sequence, would have been doomed...

Fortunately, the place had been de-consecrated and those hypnotized were merely hypnotized (rather than converted on the spot) and it was relatively easy for the one who saved to haul the rest out of the room, whereupon they regained their senses.

Lanefan

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I've got to hand you an award for this, as that has to be the biggest strawman I've seen in awhile on these forums.

Really? Why do you think it is a straw man?

I think this fits the problems of Save or Die spells pretty well. Maybe it is because they remind me of one or two situations I experienced:
- PCs open door. See several Bodaks. Some PC fails one of the several saves he now has to make.
- PCs enter a combat area, see some foes and start attacking. Foes remove a tapestry, revealing a Symbol of Death. Some PCs die.

(Don't know if the second was is actually legal after reading all fine print on the spells - but it appears to me as if the module writer thought it was...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Valid point.

With the 3e and 4e design paradigm of a 4 or 5 character party, it's easy to see how a few failed saves can ruin your day. So, to counter this, I offer a suggestion: abandon the design paradigm, and play parties of 8-10 characters. Play 2 PCs each if you like. Hire henches. And so on.

I mean, *the* archetypal adventuring party...the Fellowship of the Ring...had 9 people in it.

Well, some people say that 4E isn't as immersive as earlier edition anyway, so it could work for someone thinking the same and enjoying it anyway (I don't feel like the former, but enjoy it nevertheless ).

Personally, I am not so much a fan of running several PCs at the same time. In 3E, it certainly will cause headaches (I remember one player that ran a Duskblade with a Cleric cohort, and while he was really good at running them, he always professed that it was hard and he redesigned the cohort to make him less complex to handle). I don't think 4E will be that different, though at least the number of powers/spells you have to care for will be less.

So, either change the 1 PC per player paradigm, or change the save or die paradigm. Neither is inherently superior or better, but I prefer the latter. I don't think that I am that capable of role-playing two characters well at the same time, and thus I prefer to focus on one PC.

 

[Ginnel]

I've got to hand you an award for this, as that has to be the biggest strawman I've seen in awhile on these forums.

Actually no its putting the exact same mechanic in a different perspective.

Is it that hard to grasp that one roll is deciding the fate of the characters whether that comes from a creature ,or a trap, or a creature's trap, doesn't seem to make any difference to me.

If someone put in an environmental trap like above you would go design your adventure better and I would agree, if however the same situation comes from a monster with a bag of hit points attatched to it, it seems to be fine.

On a side note I suppose it you use save or die monsters you could put in heavy hints that they would be around, putting in clues like crumbled stone statues or a ritual book describing a summoning of Bodaks which the PC's could use knowledge roles to predict they would be facing these things and prepare, but then that would take the point of the effect away as the PC's with the correct protections would just walk straight through it.

 

[Shabe]

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.

It's also a problem the bigger the party, the more people in the party the more likely one of them is going to fail the save. Plus when you do get made to sit out seeing as you have tons of party members you're going to be out for a long time.

Fights take around an hour - hour and a half in our 3e games and we've been playing the system for 6 years. It takes longer if its a big serious fight. Thats with between 6 and 9 players.

And no we're not having a cohort for every single player, can you imagine fitting 18 people down a dungeon? Thats not D&D thats a small army.

To address the posters initial question, from what I've seen of 4e it does eliminate save or die effects, i haven't read the monster manual cover to cover yet so i may be wrong.

I think the main point against save or die effects is that you don't get a chance to react to the status you've just been hit with, one second fine next second dead. With fireballs or attacks you've taken some damage and can react to it by healing it. In 4e you can react to petrification with several powers that will give you another saving throw with a significant bonus.
I believe it also goes against one of the classic fantasy battles, the wizard dual, which is formed by wizard casting a spell then the other reacting to it, in 3e this turned into cast as many buff/defense spells as you can then hope one of your spells got through.

 

[cangrejoide]

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".

Well imagine if you could only play once a month, and when you finally get to play you fail your save vs the medusa's gaze on the first round of a combat. That combat last for a long time, and you get to sit and maybe catch up on some reading or even maybe take a nap cause the drive to the game was a long one, meanwhile your friends finish the encounter and then take another hour to escape the dungeon and get your stony ass to get de-petrified. By then maybe the adventure is over and you got to be a witness of the whole affair.

Yeah your definition of fun does sound way better than mine, in fact its the opposite of what I though fun was. Thanks for explaining it to me.