Falling from Great Heights

[Balesir]

In a way I think the "fall" thing is a red herring. I know that is what the OP was about, but its an example of where I can see that different groups will (quite irrationally, but that's allowed) differ and it's really easily fixed. I think the best fix is likely to be just to have a "dial" (since they seem to be in vogue) for the die type that fall damage does. That keeps surviving high falls possible to the same extent, while making the "usual" result much more deadly if you roll d12 than if you roll d6 for each 10'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In a way I think the "fall" thing is a red herring. I know that is what the OP was about, but its an example of where I can see that different groups will (quite irrationally, but that's allowed) differ and it's really easily fixed. I think the best fix is likely to be just to have a "dial" (since they seem to be in vogue) for the die type that fall damage does. That keeps surviving high falls possible to the same extent, while making the "usual" result much more deadly if you roll d12 than if you roll d6 for each 10'.

Yeah, basically. Of course this ends up getting back to the proportionality thing in the long run. Cliffs are a bit of an oddity because it is a passive danger and doesn't have to really directly relate to anything outside of the PCs that happen to fall off of it. When you get back to a situation like archers, PCs, and a dragon you start to run into problems. There should be a strict hierarchy there, according to some people, yet there isn't one order to their threat level which is satisfactory.

In the final analysis I put all of this kind of stuff into a largely theorycraft category. In my entire 35+ years of running and playing D&D a character has survived some tremendous fall 2 times that I can remember. It isn't exactly a major consideration on which I'd put a large amount of emphasis or design the rules around at the expense of any other goal I wanted to accomplish. It is certainly WAY down there in my priorities.

 

[Shadeydm]

I think a simple open ended guideline like falling damage up to distance x is xdx per x distance of the fall. Falling further than distance x may have consequnces beyond damage in the guideline see your DM for details. I see no reason there has to be a hard fast rule that falling over distance x is instant death. This determination could be based largely upon situation and or the tone of the campaign. The important factor to me is that the players have a clear understanding how such falls will be adjucated in the context of the campaign.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, you're missing my point. You're saying that it's not believable for a character to survive the fall. I agree. I'm just wondering why it's believable for the dragon to do maximum damage - to hit the character as absolutely hard as it can - no dodging, no ducking and weaving, a square on the head, perfect chin music hit - and the character keeps on trucking.

You're changing the examples. You're saying it's believable because the PC always dodges the dragon. No matter what. The PC will always dodge the dragon, and that's believable. But, it's not believable that the same character survives the fall.

Again, it's Flying Snowmen all the way down.

I get that you set your "believability" dial at a certain point. And fair enough. My point is that your believability dial is a bit strange when you start to actually look at it.

But, honestly, we've wandered so far from the point now that I'm not even sure where this rabbit hole goes.

 

[El Mahdi]

...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.

I read the Flying Snowman piece, and I'd have the same question for John Scalzi as I do for those here...

Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them?

Why is it so important for one to point out the irrationality or ridiculessness of others choices?

Are anybodies choices so perfectly reasonable and sound, that they can become a universal reference point for determining when someone else has strayed from what's reasonable and sound?

Aren't those who point out peoples irrationality about their preceptions of believability, also choosing what irrationalities to be bothered by?

And, is it really a choice to be bothered by one thing and not another? Are people really choosing things on purpose to break their suspension of disbelief? Or is it just a byproduct of how our individual minds work and percieve the world around us?

If one doesn't believe it's a choice, that what bothers one might not bother another (and vice versa), and that we have no real choice in the matter (it's just how our particular reasonings work)... Then why try so hard to point out how illogical others perceptions are, and fight so hard for the inclusion of ones own perceptions, and the exclusion of others perceptions, when it comes to the next edition of D&D?

I've seen it mentioned here in this thread many times (and specifically by yourself numerous times) that D&D at it's core, is illogical and ridculous. It's make believe with no real correlation to the real world. Yet we all have chosen to play this illogical game of make believe. However, I'm also sure that we also understand there needs to be a certain level of commonality as to expectations at our individual tables. Otherwise we're just talking gibberish to eachother. So, we group together in groups that have a (mostly) shared perception of believability. And we play this illogical game based on those perceptions.


So, as said earlier: Why is it so hard for one to accept other peoples choices as to what they consider rational, realistic, or acceptable at their tables...and that if there is enough people who feel the same, why their ideas, styles, and assumptions can't also be presented in D&D Next?


And if one can accept these differences, then what are we still arguing about?

 

[Hussar]

El Mahdi - The simple answer is, it depends.

If you're specifically talking about falling? Then no worries. We've agreed on this pages ago.

If you're specifically talking about a broad based changed to the mechanics that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - changing the genre from heroic fantasy to gritty is a change that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - then the disagreement starts. What you're asking for is a lot more than a simple rules module. You're looking at an entirely new game. There's a reason that D20 Modern rules are separate from d20 baseline rules.

You want a separate book that will let you do what you want? Fine and dandy. You want to eat up about a third of the core books to let you do what you want? Not so much.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But, you're missing my point. You're saying that it's not believable for a character to survive the fall. I agree. I'm just wondering why it's believable for the dragon to do maximum damage - to hit the character as absolutely hard as it can - no dodging, no ducking and weaving, a square on the head, perfect chin music hit - and the character keeps on trucking.

Dude, no offense, but I think you're missing my point. I think many people wouldn't describe that blow if they have a problem with people falling and living. It blows their suspension of disbelief just like falling and walking away does. They'd described a full-damage blow as something like trying to parry with a weapon while dodging, the dragon's tail just glancing with the sword, and the PC falling down briefly before rolling to his feet. That "full HP hit" does not need to be described as physical with the dragon. People object to falls because you don't have much of another option without shifting into a much more extreme dramatist mode (rather than combat abstraction), and that's not what they want out of hit points.

Secondly, as I said, it's believable to people because of genre tropes. I've got like three posts on it in this thread recently. I'm not going to go over it again (until the second half of this post, apparently!).

I get that you set your "believability" dial at a certain point. And fair enough. My point is that your believability dial is a bit strange when you start to actually look at it.

But, honestly, we've wandered so far from the point now that I'm not even sure where this rabbit hole goes.

Whoa, we're not even talking about where my dial is set. I guess I never did make that clear. I was elaborating for someone else. I have seen a PC fall 130 feet, get up, and start kicking undead ass once again. It was in my group's most memorable fight. We got a couple "that's ridiculous" but we moved on really quickly. We can do that, even if that moment is a tiny deal-breaker SOD-wise for just a moment.

However, when people say "how can you think this about suspension of disbelief when it comes to things like these?" the answer seems very simple, to me: they've read/watched fantasy genre fiction where this makes sense and they expect it (like fighting a dragon), and these don't make sense and they don't expect it (like falling 100' or getting bit full-on by a dragon and being fine).

It's basic. Everyone's level of suspension of disbelief is weird. But, honestly, placing it at what you've read/watched seems incredibly reasonable, and less arbitrary than "reasoning" things out (and winding up at a place where your own SOD kicks in unreasonably), and much more satisfying than saying "anything goes, because it's fantasy" (and winding up with a time-traveling Darth Vader PC alongside Bugs Bunny). But, that's my take on it. As always, play what you like

 

[El Mahdi]

El Mahdi - The simple answer is, it depends.

If you're specifically talking about falling? Then no worries. We've agreed on this pages ago.

If you're specifically talking about a broad based changed to the mechanics that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - changing the genre from heroic fantasy to gritty is a change that is going to impact virtually every aspect of the game - then the disagreement starts. What you're asking for is a lot more than a simple rules module. You're looking at an entirely new game. There's a reason that D20 Modern rules are separate from d20 baseline rules.

You want a separate book that will let you do what you want? Fine and dandy. You want to eat up about a third of the core books to let you do what you want? Not so much.

I understand this from your answers pages back also. However, I am curious about your answers to the rest of my post...

I read the Flying Snowman piece, and I'd have the same question for John Scalzi as I do for those here...


Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them...?


Why is it so important for one to point out the irrationality or ridiculessness of others choices...? Why is it so important to point out other peoples "Flying Snowmen"...?


Are anybodies choices so perfectly reasonable and sound, that they can become a universal reference point for determining when someone else has strayed from what's reasonable and sound...?


Aren't those who point out peoples irrationality about their preceptions of believability, also choosing what irrationalities to be bothered by...?


And, is it really a choice to be bothered by one thing and not another...? Are people really choosing things on purpose to break their suspension of disbelief...? Or is it just a byproduct of how our individual minds work and percieve the world around us...?


If one doesn't believe it's a choice, that what bothers one might not bother another (and vice versa), and that we have no real choice in the matter (it's just how our particular reasonings work)...then why try so hard to point out how illogical others perceptions are...?


I've seen it mentioned here in this thread many times (and specifically by yourself numerous times) that D&D at it's core, is illogical and ridculous. It's make believe with no real correlation to the real world. Yet we all have chosen to play this illogical game of make believe. However, I'm also sure that we understand there needs to be a certain level of commonality as to expectations at our individual tables. Otherwise we're just talking gibberish to eachother. So, we join together in groups that have a (mostly) shared perception of believability. And we play this illogical game based on those perceptions.



So, as said earlier: Why is it so hard for one to accept other peoples choices as to what they consider rational, realistic, or acceptable at their tables...?



And if one can accept these differences, then what are we still arguing about...?

 

[Hussar]

Well, El Mahdi, my basic answer is, who cares?

I really, really don't care what happens at your table. The same way, would never expect anyone to care what happens at my table. Whether or not something is believable is entirely about taste.

You asked why continue to argue about it. I answered that. You want to add something to the game that will radically affect every aspect of the game and change the game into something else. THAT'S what I'm arguing against. I could not care less how you deal with believability issues at your table. I can't. There's nothing I can do about that.

However, you keep insisting that we include this giant bolus of mechanics.

Let me ask you a more practical question. How long do you think this set of mechanics would be? How many changes would it take to make it satisfactory? How much space is that going to take up?

I have no ideological horse in this race. I simply do not care. My issue is practical.

If you can get what you want in a module that takes up a page, then great, no worries. Include it in the books. I don't see how you could though. But, I'm willing to be shown.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Why does it matter so much that people may be making illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them?

I don't care if people make illogical choices as to what bothers them and doesn't bother them. Heck, I do the same things in my preferences sometimes, since I'm comfortable with paradox, and often take a more "holistic" view of how things fit together.

I do care if they try to make arguments upon such a foundation, as if their illogical choices were some kind of coherent platform that just makes sense. It's only a small step from that to, "What you said happened in your game can't possibly happen, because in my (narrow, constricted) view of how things could work, that would mean X, and we can't allow that to be possible, because then I might have to rethink things." "You can do Z if you don't mind [insert unflattering conclusion that very well may be true for them, but not most people who do Z and know how to do it.]".

Not everyone takes that last, nasty step, of course. Most people have enough common sense to stop there. Enough do that it gets old, fast. And then every now and then you get someone who wouldn't know the difference between Preference and Fact if both lived at his house for 40 years, and kicked him down the stairs every morning via way of greeting.