Falling from Great Heights

[erleni]

Plot armor makes heroes of us all.

Plot Armor

Plot Armor is an enchantment you can add to any armor, or even to no armor. Plot armor never rusts, cannot be broken apart and repairs itself as soon as you can feed pizza or chips to your Dungeon Master.

 

[Balesir]

Because DnD is a level based game players start to think this way. We are first level we are not meant to fight the ancient red dragon. I am 15 level there is no way I have to worry if I get caught robbing this shop because the city guard can't touch me.

Some players don't do this but a lot do even ones who do role play. Even good role players try and think some what tactically.

With this kind of thinking it makes it hard to tell certain type of stories.

Absolutely right, and well put, I think.

The answer is simple - to tell these types of story/experience these types of games, use a system without levels.

What I find disturbing is not that other roleplayers have a yen for this kind of game - I think it's entirely natural to, in fact - but that they want to make this "also part of D&D". There are only so many things that D&D can simultaneously be - and experience suggests that the more of them it tries to be, the poorer it will be as any one of them. And 'level-less' is not something that it has ever been.

On this point I have a different view. I think Basic Roleplayng is just about the easiest and simplest system I know, and Runequest not much more complex (it adds in hit location and crit rules, but they're the simplest version of such rules that I know). And it is a highly realistic engine - much moreso than D&D (any edition), in my personal view.

I can't xp you right now, but I agree wholeheartedly, here. RQ2 is simpler than AD&D, let alone later editions of D&D, by a country mile.

I think in some cases when people say "system X is more complicated" they are referring to the fact that how dangerous things are under that system is less clear-cut than it is with D&D - which is funny since that is precisely the effect they seem to be pining for!

Maybe Next could develop a new philosophy: solipsistic reskinning. Meaning if somebody wants to change the fiction in a certain way to please themselves, even though this won't affect anything else in the game, they're encouraged to silently imagine it without sharing it with the other participants.

This effect not only happens, it is functionally impossible to play any roleplaying game at all without it. We just get all bent out of shape when it becomes obvious to us that other people in the game are doing it wrong.

Part of the genius of 4E is that it provides rules such that the simultaneous 'solipsistic reskinning' being done by all the players will not generally result in clashes, provided that they are all following the rules as written.

 

[Minigiant]

When the rules don't state what happens, you fill in the blanks by thinking about what the most realistic possibility is, rather than trying to be colorful and expressive with it just because you can. Magical and mystical and weird experiences have to earned. In my view. I'm sure that sounds boring.

Maybe I'm thinking more of the RPGnet board culture where verisimilitude has become basically a dirty word that you get mocked for using, unless you're being ironic.

My point is that there is no verisimilitude for high level D&D when it comes to PC defenses. None. We know how a level 1-5 PC survive most attacks, they don't. But once you get to double digits, PCs officially can regular survive things Earth humans won't.

But D&D never explains whether a double digit level PC is a more skilled humanoid or a unbelievable superhuman. Many novels, movies, comic, and cartoons have official fluff for survival. D&D doesn't.

When high level D&D PCs survives something us earthlings won't, you have to either...

• Make up whatever reason for the character's survival
• Break the rules and kill them anyway

or

• Make up new rules and kill them anyway

 

[Thaumaturge]

Okay, so if I say "I am going to drink this bottle of poison" and do so, then I die, right?

But if I say "I am going to drink this potion of healing" but it actually also contains a poison, I get a saving throw to avoid dying?

If I say "I eat this apple" and I don't know it's a poisoned apple, I get a save, but if I say "I eat this poisoned apple" I automatically die?

I'm trying to figure out what you guys are saying here about when you'd take away a save entirely.

My view on this is that a successful saving throw is the character recognizing the apple or potion is poisoned and spitting out the one bite or swallow they've taken. If the character has resolved to drink the potion no matter what, then I understand the argument for a save not being applicable, and death being inevitable.

However, I could see the argument that the body reacts involuntarily, like when downing a gallon of milk in one go, and even if the player wants the character to drink the vial of poison, a save is rolled. If successful, the character's body has a violent reaction and saves itself. This probably isn't how I'd adjudicate it, but I see it as being perfectly reasonable.

I don't think this is a Schrodinger situation.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well yes. That is how level-based games work. The idea of the game is that you become more capable as time progresses, and threats that were too great when you began may become surmountable. You don't get to start the game off in a fist-fight with Zeus, nor does the next pigfarmer with a dream threaten you when you have become able knock Zeus on his holy butt.

Moving away from that is basically asking for a different game, or at least a heavily modified variant.

Inexperienced PCs need to be more careful which is why they are cautious and realize that at this point they don't have the skills, magic or training to fight a red dragon.

And yes it makes sense that a more trained group will have a better chance living if they take on a red dragon. But it is not a guarantee. It is still a threat just not one with no hope of success.

But a PC does not know that all the city guard can be beaten simply because they are a lower level. Or that the King can't defend himself because of he is only a low level noble.

I am not talking pig farmers here I am talking city guard who deal with trouble makers every day and have skill with weapons. Just because they are not out adventuring does not mean that PCs should just just brush them off.

Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman.

I know some people like that kind of game I don't. I want the PCs to get stronger and be able to take on more threats like fight an ancient wyrm. I want the fighters to be the swordsmen of legend who took on a dozen or so bad guys and won. A mage who can stop time and call down meteor storms on armies. But I don't want it to be silly. Where one mage can wipe out an army of 10,000 men.

The way a lot of high level PCs act I would think that those in power would find a way to neutralize them before they became that big of a threat.

 

[Elf Witch]

Absolutely right, and well put, I think.

The answer is simple - to tell these types of story/experience these types of games, use a system without levels.

What I find disturbing is not that other roleplayers have a yen for this kind of game - I think it's entirely natural to, in fact - but that they want to make this "also part of D&D". There are only so many things that D&D can simultaneously be - and experience suggests that the more of them it tries to be, the poorer it will be as any one of them. And 'level-less' is not something that it has ever been.

.

I know that but there could be rules built into the system to handle this. Like how to handle mobs, how to make falling more realistic, a simple way to just scale city guardsmen or make bows more of a threat.

English longbows were devastating yet they are a sub optimal weapon in DnD at higher levels.

They should be able to make a game where the DM gets to decide just how realistic he wants his game to be.

Telling us to just go play something else is losing customers for DnD something I thought they wanted to fix.

 

[BryonD]

Well, if by "near that far" you mean about 1980 when I started playing, then, I guess you'd be right.

Point is, BryonD, you're actually mistaken here. You said that in earlier editions, if you looked at a medusa you turned to stone. This was never true in any edition of the game and this point was hammered home pretty thoroughly with actual quotes from nearly every edition of the game.

So, fine, if you want to house rule that staring at a medusa turns you to stone, then more power to you. But, don't pretend that this is how the game was written. It wasn't. It never was. This is only your interpretation of things.

We already went through this Hussar. I agree that you can apply a thoughtless application of the rules in an absence of intent and completely go sideways with the experience. And I'll also point out that there are countless other comments in the DMG, throughout Dragon Magazine, and many other resources that describe, defend, and embrace as fundamental to every rule in the game that intent and rational application are paramount.

There is NO basis whatsoever for thinking that actually ever intentionally looking at Medusa would do anything other than turn you to stone. The rules didn't find a need to explain that, particularly given that the concept of over-riding intent is so frequently made clear. The rules PRESUME an effort to avoid. And, before this "recent era" I've mentioned NO ONE I ever games with in a situation of this type even CONSIDERED it an option to do otherwise.

You are putting what amounts to an abuse of the rules over any effort to create a quality narrative. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you complain over and over about bad experiences you have with other players. And I think there is ZERO coincidence that you are the one calling your own game experience "ludicrous". I've reach the point that I'm convinced that you are completely blind and unaware of what the game experience *I* seek and routinely enjoy is even about.

I don't know what you want and it makes no difference. I hope your games are as fun as you can make them. But I also am certain your comments are virtually irrelevant to the kind of amazing experience I know can happen. And certainly even remotely suggesting that my experiences are slightly "ludicrous" is unfathomable, much less calling that fish in a barrel.

But keep that in mind when you struggle to grasp the disconnect between what you talk about and others achieve.

AFAIC, I don't ever worry about things like this because it's never come up and I doubt it ever will. I'm of the opinion that we really don't need mechanics for extreme corner case situations. That's what DM's are for.

Wait....
Ok, and if it did come up, as a DM what would you do?
Is a staring contest with Medusa any less of a corner case?

Which position are you taking?

 

[BryonD]

This is trivial to the fundamental point....

But the PF poison system actually increases total damage AND DC as more more doses are applied.

 

[Incenjucar]

Inexperienced PCs need to be more careful which is why they are cautious and realize that at this point they don't have the skills, magic or training to fight a red dragon.

And yes it makes sense that a more trained group will have a better chance living if they take on a red dragon. But it is not a guarantee. It is still a threat just not one with no hope of success.

But a PC does not know that all the city guard can be beaten simply because they are a lower level. Or that the King can't defend himself because of he is only a low level noble.

I am not talking pig farmers here I am talking city guard who deal with trouble makers every day and have skill with weapons. Just because they are not out adventuring does not mean that PCs should just just brush them off.

I'm sorry, but you are talking about your DESIRES, not the reality.

A D&D character in +3 chainmail wielding a flametongue sword and shielded by the blessings of Pelor who has just finished offing an entire dungeon's worth of illithids and their servants is likely to roll their eyes when a bunch of generic guards rush them. PCs don't understand levels, but they can still understand relative power. Technically a dozen children could have killed Bruce Lee in a fight, but he's sure as hell not going to wet himself at their threats.

Like I said in a game like Shadowrun law enforcement, private security can be a match for the runners. It will never be come I am so high level I don't have to worry if there are ten Lone Star officers with smart guns pointed at me they can't hit me because I am now Superman.

D&D is not Shadowrun at all. AT ALL.

I know some people like that kind of game I don't.

That game is called Dungeons and Dragons. Good news! There are houserules aplenty.

I want the PCs to get stronger and be able to take on more threats like fight an ancient wyrm. I want the fighters to be the swordsmen of legend who took on a dozen or so bad guys and won. A mage who can stop time and call down meteor storms on armies. But I don't want it to be silly. Where one mage can wipe out an army of 10,000 men.

10,000 attacks = 500 crits, so I think you're stretching your argument a bit.

The way a lot of high level PCs act I would think that those in power would find a way to neutralize them before they became that big of a threat.

Sure. They send them into deadly dungeons and hurl them at dragons.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

To be clear: I'm talking here about 80s RQ. I don't know Mongoose's version of it.

MRQs (at least the second version, and the now "Legends") is a lot the same. It edges slightly towards D&D, in that your odds of getting away with the more unrealistic stuff is slightly better. But a random guards' spear thrust can still completely ruin your career. Because MRQ II is a bit more streamlined than the earlier versions, it is also a bit more obvious when the rules are against you--e.g. the spirit possession rules are as nasty as they always were, but without any false hope injected.

So I think MRQ also supports your earlier assessment.