Falling from Great Heights

[pemerton]

Why do you call them "metagame rules"?

If Mike Tyson thinks that he can easily defeat a dozen of 4 years old kids in a boxe fight, is he applying "metagame rules", or does he simply know what he can achieve?

<snip>

a frigging colossal dragon could hold a high level monk, with no armor whatsover, in his/her mouth, and breath acid/fire/youchoosewhat right on his face, with no saving throw allowed, and most high level PC would survive this attack.

<snip>

this high level PC should also have suffered several crossbow bolts / bow arrows hit in his career, even direct hits while he was helpless, and would know what damage he could reasonably aspect from them, and he could compare them to the cited dragon.

Now, I really can't see why his expericence with the dragon and the bolts/arrows should be seen as metagame rules.

It depends on how you play hp, saving throws etc.

If you play them as non-metagame (hit points = "meat") then the fiction will play out the way you describe. High level PCs are near-invulnerable (like Superman, The Mighty Thor, etc).

But - as per Gygax's description in his DMG - I treat hp in these situations as luck/divine favour. They're an alternative mechanic to fate points, but like fate points are (as I see them) a metagame thing: at the mechanical level, the PC survives due to having many hit points; in the fiction, the PC survives due to amazing luck or divine intervention. But the PC doesn't know (though might hope) that such intervention will be forthcoming.

([MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION]'s example of angels intervening to break a PC's fall is an extreme example of narrating such divine intervention. Think also the shooting/conversion scene in Pulp Fiction.)

This, in my view, is the answer to those who are worried that high level PCs will go cliff-diving for sport: in the fiction, they have no reason to take the risk that the gods will protect them once again. (And at the metagame level, I assume that those who are playing a game of heroic fantasy aren't interested in playing inane cliff-divers.)

If you want to play hit points as meat, obviously I'm in no position to stop you! I think that this is at odds with Gygax's approach, and it seems to be most popular among some 3E players. I don't think it works well for 4e, because it's hard to explain how compassion and encouragement from your friend can restore your meat (ie martial healing doesn't gel well with hp as meat). And I personally don't like the flavour it lends to the fiction. That's why I prefer fiction as metagame (and saving throws also, as per the 1st ed AD&D DMG - in 3E I recognise that saving throws are no longer metagame, but that's part of why I don't particularly care for 3E).

 

[Aaron]

But - as per Gygax's description in his DMG - I treat hp in these situations as luck/divine favour. They're an alternative mechanic to fate points, but like fate points are (as I see them) a metagame thing: at the mechanical level, the PC survives due to having many hit points; in the fiction, the PC survives due to amazing luck or divine intervention. But the PC doesn't know (though might hope) that such intervention will be forthcoming.

Luck/divine intervention?

I think there are some major problems with this approach:

1) what if my players don't like at all the "predestination" profile this approach implies?

2) the number of deadly menaces a standard adventurer faces in his career would make him look more like Gladstone Gander or Nedward Flanders;

3) if the Pc doesn't know what he can do (since everything he achieved was due to sheer luck/divine intervention), what can he plan?

How can he know if a mission is too hard to accomplish?

How can assess the risks involved if every single deadly attack in his life missed him thanks to luck?

If he opts to face hundreds of deadly menaces thinking about how luck he was before, either he's basing his decision on the "metagame rules" you despise, or he's simply outrageously silly.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.



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



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



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



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

First of all I thought this was about what people would like to see in the new game. That is what this entire forum is about at this moment people's desires. My desire is a game with the ability to ass more realism and less anime, video game feel.

I played in a game where the PCs walked up to the city walls where they were considered an enemy and instead of standing down they allowed the 25 archers on the wall to fire at them of course none hit because how can a third level archer hope to challenge a 15 level party. Then they ruthlessly cut down close to 50 guardsmen. 50 to 4 and we had maybe one or two crits that hit.

The city was not evil we were not evil. We had been working for a person who was an enemy of the city and we didn't know it.

That was the last session because the DM said he had no desire to play a game with PCs who act like this.

Like I said I have seen numerous posts over the years about situations like this and DMs getting frustrated with it and the only fix for it is to make all the guards the same level.

And once they survive the dragon they come in take over the kingdom because they can.

Maybe 10,000 was an exaggeration but not by much I have read story hours here where a high level party had destroyed an army.

Like I keep saying why if this game is going have dials then why can't it have a way to dial up the realism and grittiness.

That way you can play the way you want I can play the way I want.

 

[Mattachine]

If you are "hit" by the charging knight with a lance, what happens depend on your hit point total:

1. If it kills you, you were skewered right through internal organs.
2. If you are left with a few hit points, it was a solid hit, but it didn't kill you.
3. If you are left with more than a few hit points, it grazed you to little effect--because of your skill or luck.

It's been like that in all editions of D&D. Just read the section under hit points--why are we talking about this again?

Ah, right--falling. DMs should make common sense rulings. In my games, both in 3e and 4e, great heights kill people that fall from them. I ballpark that at about 100'--but I am not worried about the exact height. Characters (and players) in my games are afraid of falling from great heights.

 

[Elf Witch]

If a high level character should fear a dozen country bandits armed with crossbows it means that:

1) we are talking about country bandits who could face an ancient red wyrm;

2) ancient red wyrms are no more deadly than a dozen country bandits.

I don't really understand how you can make your world intrinsically coherent, and I'm talking seriously, do not get me wrong: why should a high level PC in his right mind face an ancient red wyrm if he should fear a dozen country bandits?

And, really, @fenriswolf456 : what's so incomprehensible?

I am not talking about a handful country bandits I am talking about what should be overwhelming numbers.

25 trained archers with bows drawn and 4 PCs with no cover should be a threat for the PCs. The problem is DnD does not have a mechanic where one blow can kill a high level character.

 

[Elf Witch]

Hopefully the modules will include rules to actually include those incongruous playstyles so that people no longer have to be upset that the rules ignore how they play, without simply thrusting the issue on people who have been playing more in line with the rules.

I guess you keep missing the point that some of us are saying and that is we would like the ability to use DND to play our style game without taking away the ability to play yours.

We are not trying to thrust the issue on you at all.

 

[pemerton]

Luck/divine intervention?

I think there are some major problems with this approach

I agree that it doesn't work especially well for a planning-oriented game, and all the grit that that can tend to bring with it.

 

[Aaron]

That was the last session because the DM said he had no desire to play a game with PCs who act like this.

Free will, the enemy of inexperienced DMs.

 

[pemerton]

If you are "hit" by the charging knight with a lance, what happens depend on your hit point total:

1. If it kills you, you were skewered right through internal organs.
2. If you are left with a few hit points, it was a solid hit, but it didn't kill you.
3. If you are left with more than a few hit points, it grazed you to little effect--because of your skill or luck.

It's been like that in all editions of D&D. Just read the section under hit points--why are we talking about this again?

Because there's a wide spectrum of opinion over what is going on with option 2?

At least some people seem to think "solid hit" means serious wounding.

I think "solid hit" means something that you can walk away from without any serious impairment, and in spite of you can proceed on after resting something like 1 day to 1 fortnight (depending on edition). Which is, therefore, not a serious wound.

 

[Mattachine]

My post is directed at those that only want choices #1 and #2. If you are hit, you are killed or badly wounded. I am pointing out that D&D has never been that way, and, despite whatever debate we have here on EN World, the new edition isn't going to be like that, either.