Falling from Great Heights

[Minigiant]

Took long enough for a cowboy & indians analogy/reference.

Essentially Hit Points are Excuses For Not being Dead.

The whole argument is about what is inexcusable in core.

Is there a core excuse for being not dead after falling?
Is there a core excuse for being not dead after shoot at a dozen times with arrows?

Depends on who you ask and what table you are on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, and of course if you don't like that sort of game where people can survive impossible odds on a regular basis at high level (or whatever) then systems with fate points and high level D&D will equally violate one's sense of verisimilitude.

Where I get lost is when some people are insisting on a setup where in SOME types of situations the player or the mechanics say you survive impossible things or do impossible things are OK, but others aren't. Surely in any system there WILL be limits, but it makes sense to have the limits apply pretty consistently across all types of threats to me. It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't. Maybe the later type of system is perfectly feasible, but IMHO you're going to have players constantly wondering which things they can and can't do. Their reasoning based on the real world won't help them much. Instead D&D gives you a level and basically says "well, your level roughly gives you a scale for how crazy you can get and still pull it off." IMHO 4e does a really nice job of that by making threat levels pretty consistent and tending to match up threats to the PCs level. For me that's a good system because the players can generally assume that if they're given a choice that that choice is feasible in the context of the challenges they will be facing. Of course there aren't any total guarantees, even in 4e. Still, IME it fosters a lot of "do crazy stuff" because the game isn't filled with gotchas. If the DM throws in something you can't handle then it is probably fairly singular and he should be able to say "you know you can't survive a fall like that" and the player knows it isn't an option.

I see a lot more of player's pulling out the stops and trying crazy stuff with 4e than with past editions. Not all choices are GOOD, but generally most of them are at least feasible options.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't.

Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more.

I think that's a huge factor when it comes to verisimilitude. While it's subjective, breaking someone's suspension of disbelief is what breaks verisimilitude. That suspension of disbelief is often based on the mediums through which that person has observed the genre being played (usually some sort of medieval fantasy). If those tropes are ignored, twisted, or otherwise broken in the mind of the player, it'll break their suspension of disbelief and ruin their sense of verisimilitude.

Sure, it's subjective, but I don't think you need to wonder why people accept fighting dragons and giants but not 100' falls onto the pavement. We see the former in fantasy all the time; we hardly see the latter at all. As always, play what you like

 

[Dour-n-Taciturn]

I'm reminded of that scene in the recent "Immortals" where Theseus is meeting with Hyperion (don't get me started on how badly they fudged the original story), the man (not a Titan as per the original...) who killed his mother in cold blood. As Theseus realizes who Hyperion is, he lunges at him, but halts as Hyperion's troops all draw their bows against him.

Now, what level was this version of Theseus? If he was 10th level or less, keep in mind that he was not wearing any armor or magic items, and the archers were say around 3rd level, they may still pose enough of a threat for him to not charge in without pause.

The same film had the gods coming down from Mt. Olympus and intervening in some of the battles. Such characters would be at least 20th level, were wearing armor, and are deities, so those same archers would pose no threat. In the same film, Poseidon jumped off Mt. Olympus and dove into the sea, creating a tidal wave (he did survive handily).

So based on this cinematic trope alone, we have two disparate tiers of power. D&D should be able to demonstrate both, and does.

I also seem to recall Johnathan Harker jumping off the edge of Dracula's mountain castle walls, falling into a river below; he was brought back to health by the nuns who later found him.

 

[Hussar]

Well, starting at 1:48, we have a pretty long drop and no serious effect.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onPXqpjeSTA&t=1m48s]The Three Musketeers (2011) FIRST FIVE MINUTES - HD Mila Jovovich Movie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hussar]

Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more./snip

Not an entirely fair comparison.

Name all the fantasy movies/books where the character is seized in the jaws of the dragon, the dragon bites down and the character is more or less unhurt and you've got a better comparison. Or the number of times the character is directly slammed by a giant and walks away from it.

Because, at the end of the day, that's the issue here. People want to pick and choose their examples. A giant will never, ever directly hit my fighter, thus never actually killing him, at least not until the final blow, but, 20 archers will drop me. The dragon will never get a clean hit, but, if I fall, there will never be anything to break my fall.

It's The Flying Snowmen all over again.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fantasy genre tropes. I'll name all the books/movies I can where people overcome or hold off a giant/dragon/etc., and you name all the books/movies you can where people fall off a 100' cliff onto the cold hard dirt (with no slope or anything) and live. We'll see who names more.

I think that's a huge factor when it comes to verisimilitude. While it's subjective, breaking someone's suspension of disbelief is what breaks verisimilitude. That suspension of disbelief is often based on the mediums through which that person has observed the genre being played (usually some sort of medieval fantasy). If those tropes are ignored, twisted, or otherwise broken in the mind of the player, it'll break their suspension of disbelief and ruin their sense of verisimilitude.

Sure, it's subjective, but I don't think you need to wonder why people accept fighting dragons and giants but not 100' falls onto the pavement. We see the former in fantasy all the time; we hardly see the latter at all. As always, play what you like

Eh, I think I can find plenty of instances of 100' falls and justifications for why people survived them (heck, people survive them in real life sometimes, it doesn't take THAT much of a stretch to justify). Of course it really depends on the person, but speaking for myself I have no more or less trouble imagining how a fighter can melee with a 12' tall 3000 pound giant wielding a club that weighs 40lbs and has 7' of reach on him and 10x his strength as I do imagining said fighter falling 100' and walking away. Both are THOROUGHLY in the realm of pure fantasy. I could point out far more things that are unrealistic about the melee than I could about the fall. 12' tall humanoids are literally physically impossible. There's really not much further you can get from reality than that, reality is the possible and nothing beyond it.

Beyond that I think personally that it is all a matter of 'tone' and genre appropriateness. What do players expect and what fits in with the imagined conventions of the game they are playing and fits in with it in a satisfying way? I certainly wouldn't feel discomfited by a scene in a Conan novel where Conan fell 100' off a cliff and somehow walked away from it. Now, maybe if that kind of thing was just a regular ordinary thing that happened every day in the story it would start to feel cartoonish, but I don't think that's likely to happen in most D&D games. Given that the location and height of cliffs are entirely under the DM's control I'd argue that were a game to get to that point it is less a system issue and more an issue of the DM failing to match the player's genre/tone expectations.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not an entirely fair comparison.

Name all the fantasy movies/books where the character is seized in the jaws of the dragon, the dragon bites down and the character is more or less unhurt and you've got a better comparison. Or the number of times the character is directly slammed by a giant and walks away from it.

I can name a few (Strider vs the baby troll in the Fellowship movie, or the dragonslayer from DragonHeart), but I imagine mechanics that dictate this sort of fiction in-game is disrupting to people. However, as hit points have been described by many people in this very thread (and by you on occasion), it's presented as things other than physical damage. As pemerton puts it, it's mojo. This makes things like a dragon biting someone directly seem like it's wiping out the PC's hit points (while mechanics like Snatch for a dragon's jaws have already been described as poor quality in this regard).

Because, at the end of the day, that's the issue here. People want to pick and choose their examples. A giant will never, ever directly hit my fighter, thus never actually killing him, at least not until the final blow, but, 20 archers will drop me. The dragon will never get a clean hit, but, if I fall, there will never be anything to break my fall.

Well, the dragon can get a clean hit. It can kill you in one hit in the fiction. On the flip side, there will always have something that breaks your fall. Always. The dragon gives us a possible of fiction of attacks and near misses, or attack and unconsciousness/death, both of which are commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction. The fall is always interrupted, however; there is no falling to your death when you're high level. This isn't commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction.

I think it's a fair comparison. As always, play what you like

Of course it really depends on the person, but speaking for myself I have no more or less trouble imagining how a fighter can melee with a 12' tall 3000 pound giant wielding a club that weighs 40lbs and has 7' of reach on him and 10x his strength as I do imagining said fighter falling 100' and walking away.

I highlighted the section I was pointing out. It depends on the person. You said "It becomes hard to reason about what you should and shouldn't try when being bitten or trying to hold back a giant is OK, but falling off a 100' cliff isn't." I answered that people have a certain suspension of disbelief based on the mediums they've observed the genre through.

I'm not saying you're wrong to think about the game the way you do. I'm not trying to change the base assumptions of D&D's next edition. I was just answering your seeming inquiry into how people make this sort of illogical leap, where one unrealistic things is acceptable but another isn't acceptable. It's based on the individual person's suspension of disbelief, and if they want to mimic the fantasy fiction they've read/watched, then mechanics that make you always survive a fall and mean that you never feel threatened by low-level archers (no matter the number) sometimes break their sense of verisimilitude.

It's just based on genre expectations. People who are first exposed to the fantasy genre through the Riftwar Saga (with Pug/Tomas) and the Wheel of Time series (with Rand al'Thor, god of thunder dragons and magic) are going to have a very different set of expectations from someone who was exposed to Conan and the Lord of the Rings. The former person can probably take a lot more gonzo events in the game without breaking their suspension of disbelief than the latter.

Given that the location and height of cliffs are entirely under the DM's control I'd argue that were a game to get to that point it is less a system issue and more an issue of the DM failing to match the player's genre/tone expectations.

Personally, I'd rather see this sort of scenario viable to anybody who wants to use it, not say "well, if you want gritty over gonzo, don't use cliffs!" I'd like both preferences to have options, honestly. But, back to my original reply to you: genre expectations are going to greatly influence any individual's suspension of disbelief. You didn't understand how somebody rationalize fighting giant monsters but not falling 100' and walking away; well, there it is. Agree to disagree, sure, but it makes perfect sense to see fiction and want to mimic it with an RPG. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Well, the dragon can get a clean hit. It can kill you in one hit in the fiction. On the flip side, there will always have something that breaks your fall. Always. The dragon gives us a possible of fiction of attacks and near misses, or attack and unconsciousness/death, both of which are commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction. The fall is always interrupted, however; there is no falling to your death when you're high level. This isn't commonly reflected in modern fantasy fiction.

Sure there is. You can die of a fall at high levels in exactly the same way that the dragon can kill you - you have less than enough hit points to survive the attack.

If you have more HP though, the dragon can NEVER kill you. No matter what that dragon does, he cannot kill you without first ablating your hit points down. If the dragon does X damage maximum, and I have X+1 HP, that dragon can never, ever kill me in that first hit. The exact same logic applies to falling. If falling does X damage and I have X+1 HP, I can never die in that fall.

What's the difference? Why is it inherently more believable that a dragon can never, ever kill you on the first hit, but, you can survive a fall?

 

[JamesonCourage]

If you have more HP though, the dragon can NEVER kill you. No matter what that dragon does, he cannot kill you without first ablating your hit points down. If the dragon does X damage maximum, and I have X+1 HP, that dragon can never, ever kill me in that first hit. The exact same logic applies to falling. If falling does X damage and I have X+1 HP, I can never die in that fall.

Yes, but from a fully-healed, full-mojo perspective, I can always survive a fall. Always. This isn't the expectation most people would come to after observing most fantasy fiction.

What's the difference? Why is it inherently more believable that a dragon can never, ever kill you on the first hit, but, you can survive a fall?

Because of standard fantasy genre tropes. I just went over this. People are used to seeing people fight dragons and dodge, or get knocked around and live. They are not used to seeing a group of people jump off of a cliff towards the hard ground and surviving the fall without some outside influence. You could get saved by landing on a giant intelligent eagle, for example, and people will accept that. However, I don't think HP is really meant to model reinforcements arriving. That's not its niche.

I really don't understand why some people in this thread can't grasp why others see things a certain way. I mean, I have my leanings, but I at least see both sides. You're asking why something is more believable to some people, and I've answered that. Not only in this post, but the previous couple posts. If you're still wondering about it, go and reread them. I've said about as much as I can on people's reasoning. AbdulAlhazred summed it up: "it really depends on the person". As always, play what you like