Falling from Great Heights

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I'm in the same basic place. What other people are doing at their tables is really not any of my business and it is fine if they are or are not bothered by any particular thing or want a game with any specific features.

IMHO building a fairly different game in parallel with what is presumably a fairly conventional D&D style that 5e will default to SEEMS like it would require a good chunk of different rules. My guess is too much to be practical as a module in the core.

As was stated somewhere above, if it ends up being a page or 3 then great, that's probably different. If it is 40 pages of tweaks to half the stuff in the game, which I kind of suspect, or even 20 pages, then it probably deserves its own supplement or possible a whole RPG title.

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

Frankly, I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty". Just because someone provides their reasoning for why they would want it, and why it's more believable to them, doesn't mean they are being nasty, wrong, or any other negative connotation. Nor does anyone have the right to criticize them for their reasoning. Also, from what I've read in this thread, those that do want a different model of falling damage, have stated so because of the questions in the OP, have given their reasons why they want that (their opinions and reasoning for their wanting it, not an argument as to why everyone should want it), and also answered the OP's question of whether they felt the current model is a feature or a bug.

Near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with any of that, nor any grounds for having their opinions or reasoning criticized as illogical. However, most of the responses they've recieved from those that don't agree with them, have basically taken the line that they are being ridiculous or illogical to choose that aspect to be bothered by, when there are so many other things in the game that also don't make sense...and also that their ideas, if included in the next D&D iteration, will "gum up their game"...

Now that last part...That's Illogical. Talking of WotC's D&D as if it's one's own personal game, as if that person has a form of ownership over it, and has the right to decide what should not be included in it or what form it should not take...

I'm not saying you specifically, Crazy Jerome, have responded this way or not (though I don't think you have, and haven't re-read your posts to see if that's the case or not, and really don't care anyways), but there have been a vocal minority in this thread doing just that.

And I honestly don't understand why...

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

How long do I think a set of mechanics would be to present an optional falling damage mechanic? How much space do I think it will take up? Very small. Likely no more than a paragraph.

How many changes do I think it would take to make it satisfactory? (and I'm assuming you mean changes to the core system...) Practically none.

Now to the rest of the post.

No. You didn't answer why you continue to argue this, or at least didn't answer the whole question but only addressed part of it. You say you have no ideological horse in this race. That it's purely about not wanting mechanics in the game that may mess up it's core structure in possibly widespread and unforeseen ways. That last part is a completely valid point and concern, but unfortunately, that hasn't been your predominant argument against it, or at least not your only arguement against it. You do argue not just from a standpoint of it's effects on the future edition, but also from an ideological standpoint. You continue to address peoples logic and preference to wanting it, especially through the use of the Flying Snowman concept, rather than predominantly from it's game effects. Introducing the Flying Snowmen concept as support for your argument, is making an ideological argument. An argument that seems to have become the main point of your position (at least in these last couple of pages anyways). Maybe you really don't care about what happens at other people's tables (that's not for me to judge), but it does seem you care quite a bit about what's happening inside other gamers minds. You seem to care very much about their reasoning on this subject, and take issue with the seeming (to you) illogic of their choices.

And I'm honestly curious as to why?

In answer to your question "Who cares?", I'd say that it seems you do...and very much so.

As to why I'm curious...well, it does have a bit to do with this:

Perhaps, as fans, we could rein in our tendency to flip out and massively over react to every little thing that people say. And, when people do flip out, I think, as a community, we need to completely hammer those who do. Make it absolutely clear that such behavior is not constructive and will not be tolerated. You (and I'm meaning you in the general sense, not you personally) want to brew tempests in a teacup, do so at your own peril. People who blow up these sorts of things should be treated with the ridicule they deserve.

Now, I don't agree that it's okay for anyone on ENWorld to hammer or ridicule anybody (excepting Mods). But maybe there is some validity to the community pointing out such responses and behavior to posters who do so. As long as that's done in a non-confrontational and respectful manner.

So, as part of that community, and with the above tacitly approved idea in mind, I'd posit that continuing an argument for so many pages, with at least an equal basis in personal ideology as well as it's effects on the future game, is a form of flipping out. Maybe not a quick, emphasized, and explosive flip out, but a flip out nonetheless...just a slow burning and persistent one.

I'd also say that nobody in this thread has put forth or recomended a "giant bolus of mechanics" (or more accurately, I haven't noticed anyone doing that). That seems to be an exaggeration of what people have stated in this thread. I would consider exaggeration in order to reinforce an argument as a sign of flipping out also.

Even a mechanics module for dealing with the 20 archer problem, wouldn't necessarily have a far reaching effect on the core system, nor be a giant bolus of mechanics. It could probably be done in a page or two and described as "How to tweak for a Grim n' Gritty game" or "How to introduce Real-World Realism to the game": including some basics like lowering hit points; increasing damage (perhaps even more so for specific weapon types); adding save or die rolls; and how, where, and when to apply these mechanical changes and their likely implications. The core system does not need to be designed with these ideas in mind. Instead, the modules need to be designed with the core system in mind. Though I do believe that most of us still in this conversation have a good enough grasp of RPG game mechanic design to already know that.

I feel such concepts being codifed in the rules, as modules, is important so that they are available on DDI, and can be applied to character creation, monster creation, encounter planning, etc. That opens up the usefulness of the DDI tools to the significant enough portion of the gamer community who want these type of elements.



So, especially considering that actual effects to the core system have not been expressed except as a generalized hypothetical, and with no real examples or any actual evidence...is it necessary to question people's personal reasoning in order to protect the game from being gummed up, rather than just/only addressing the actual potential game effects...?

 

[Hussar]

Wow, El Mahdi, you really, really don't want to let that go do you?

Have I posted using lots of exclamation points? Have I been using multicolored scary text to make my point more dramatic? Have I, in any way, used language like "stupid" or "idiotic"?

Yeah, didn't think so. So, you can keep banging this drum and trying to make this into something it's not, but, my basic point has always been the same.

And I honestly don't understand why...

As I've repeatedly stated, if all you want is falling damage rules, then no problems. Hey, go for it. Really. It's perfectly fine by me. I have not the slightest, teensiest, tiniest quibble with it. Is that clear enough?

Let me state it as plainly as I can.

If all you want is falling damage rules, then I one hundred percent support you and back you all the way.

On the other hand, many people in this thread have talked about making much more sweeping changes, such as allowing the rules to make low level threats credible against high level characters. This is a broad sweeping change that will affect every single aspect of the game. Under these rules, an adventure like Keep on the Borderlands would be a credible threat to a 15th level party since many of the caves include encounters with dozens of opponents. That is a very large change to the game.

Such a large change would require a great deal of space in the books to explain. This is not something you could do in a paragraph, or even a page. This is something that will take up a lot of space. Now, I could be mistaken and someone could come up with simple mechanics that can be fitted into a page or so. That's true, and, if so, I would withdraw my concerns.

So, that's why I talk about it gumming up the game. If the core rules have to expend significant page count on a module that is only geared for a selection of players, I'd rather it was in its own book. I would make the same argument for specific setting mechanics as well. I wouldn't want to see Faerun take up 20 pages of the DMG, for example.

Now, there is an ideological issue here as well. I find it somewhat hard to comprehend why people would find X perfectly acceptable while finding Y unacceptable, when, to me, they are pretty much the same. So, I discuss it. Not dismiss it. Not call it stupid or ridiculous. I do so to try to drill down why they find X believable and Y not.

And mostly I do it because I'm a huge, honking nerd.

But, it's getting rather tiresome El Mahdi, when you continue to drag in other conversations into this one, simply to try to prove something that isn't even being discussed. If I started calling JamesonCourage an idiot for believing what he does, then you'd have a point. I disagree with JC, and that's fine. But, I certainly don't think he's foolish or ridiculous for holding to his sense of disbelief. I just think he's quite obviously wrong. (The preceeding sentence is a joke, in case that wasn't obvious)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Frankly, I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty".

I'll give you an example that is not at all hypothetical, though I'm paraphrasing from a composite of all the times I've seen it. The "argument" goes something like this:

1. Gamers who don't use extensive character backgrounds are hack and slashers.

2. We know this because you can't really get into your character unless you know where the character is coming from, and can get into his head.

3. Oh, you don't use extensive backgrounds? Well, I guess you could still be doing a little bit of real roleplaying if make sure to name your character something profound sounding and have a tragic past, but that is kind of a pastiche of real character development. But you couldn't possibly be consistent with it over the course of a campaign.

4. I know this because all the people that I game with either write extensive backgrounds or are hack and slashers with no interest in roleplaying whatsoever.

Of course, it's never presented that plain, because it isn't that plain in their heads. And in fairness, not everyone that has ever uttered that tired canard of "we roleplay, not rollplay" means something like the above. (Replace "extensive background" with their pet gaming fetishes.) If they thought it through more carefully, they'd reject it, given all the logical holes when you write it out more carefully.

But some people do mean it. It's quite plain that this is, at best, an expression of the felt need to justify their hobby--which, frankly, I find rather sad.

The nasty bit is after someone like me says, "You know, we don't write extensive backgrounds because we enjoy having the characters develop in play. If you read around a bit, you'll find that this is an alternate form of artistic expression that doesn't require, and can even be harmed by, setting too much in stone before play starts. There are variations on it, too, where people establish canon for that campaign as it goes, and others where it is deliberately more freewheeling."

Then we get the argument that it cannot be as we say. At that point, the original person is projecting their own limitations or inexperience or bloody muleheadedness on gaming onto others who do something different. At no point have I said they can't play the way they play, and get a lot of enjoyment out of it. At no point have I said they should stop what they are doing and try my way (though if they want to branch out, I'm all for that). But they have insisted that not only can I not do what I say I do, that it isn't worth discussing, because it doesn't even exist.

It's the height of gaming snobbery, and an insecure snobbery precariously based on an aggressively narrow-minded ignorance, at that.

Have all the illogic you want. Ask for your illogic to be supported in the game, as much as possible. Meanwhile, I'll ask for my crazy brand of illogic to likewise be supported. The more the merrier. This is more or less what some of us have been doing. That you are doing this is why we are having this conversation still.

Don't take that fatal but small step of trying to justify your illogic as somehow inherently a good fit, using as a basis your own conception of how games must work, especially if your experiences are narrow compared to the reported experiences of the other participants. This has also happened, if not directly in this topic, it has been done by some of the participants in this topic, in other topics.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes, but from a fully-healed, full-mojo perspective, I can always survive a fall. Always.

It's important to get the modal verbs right.

The dragon can always get a clean hit. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never does. The PC dodges, the dragon get's distracted and only nips instead of crushing, etc.

The fall can always kill. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never does. The PC slows his/her descent on ledges, branches, etc, their is a stream/pool at the bottom (as per the quote upthread from Moldvay Basic), or something similar.

Now if a game consisted of nothing but falls, with convenient ponds and haystaks at the bottom, it might get absurd. But as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] said, that goes to scenario design - D&D is not equally good at a full range of scenarios. It won't support a game full of chase or race scenarios, either, because it has no very satisfactory mechanics for that (although skill challenges come closest, they still aren't all that good for races, I don't think).

I don't understand why that last step would be "so nasty".

Adding to [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]'s couple of posts on this (with which I entirely agree) - I've lost track of the number of times I've read posts along the lines of "If your players are pushing the rules hard, they're not really roleplaying", or "If you deliberately design encounters to respond to the flags of interest run up by your players in building and designing their PCs, you're railroading", or "If you deliberately design encounters to be interesting and relevant to the thematic concerns of the players and the campaing, you're just a narcisstic GM obsessing over "my precious encounter"", or "Because you leave the personalities of your NPCs flexible and underdefined before play, so you can develop them i play as part of the adjudication and resolution of encounters, you're railroading and/or you're not a real roleplayer and/or your game is just a hack&slash-fest" or, to bring it back to some of the issues in this thread, "If your players have their PCs charge the 12 archers because they know they can't be killed by a single volley of mortal archery, than your players aren't real roleplayers, they're just hack-and-slash min-maxers."

It seems fairly clear to me that at least some of these people have preferences for play heavily shaped by the style of RPGing that was dominant from the mid-80s through to the mid-90s, and is exemplified in various forms by the games of that era - White Wolf, 2nd ed AD&D, etc.

One fairly common idea the comes through is that they don't want players to "metagame", that is, to make decisions based on the mechanical state of affairs. They want players to make judgements purely based on the fiction. And then they want the mechanics to validate those choices.

The two games that I'm aware of that are most likely to actually work this way in play are Runequest and Classic Traveller. (Maybe also HERO and GURPS, but I don't know them so well.) Rolemaster will come close. Probably also Chivalry & Sorcery.

D&D has never come close to this sort of play, though - that's why, from the late 70s, multiple generations of D&D-players "moved on" to those other games. From the earliest periods of D&D play, it's also been obvious why D&D won't come close to this sort of play - because of hit points and saving throws. (Also, to a lesser extent - and of the more simulationist RPGs I mentioned, Rolemaster is closest to D&D here - because of its gonzo magic.)

3E "fixed" saving throws - turning them from a metagame mechanic to Fort, Ref and Will - and thereby giving rise to such odd questions as how Evasion works for a rogue who is pinned by a fire giant in the middle of a fireball. But it kept hit points. 4e keeps (and builds on) the 3E "solution" to saving throws, but is more overtly metagame-y about its hit points, relying on them to pick up the bulk of the metagame slack.

Now I've got no objection to people who dislike 4e. Nor to those who enjoy 80s/90s style gaming ("story"-oriented, or "fiction/narative first" gaming, as some describe it - gaming without player metagaming). But when their preference seems to cloud their understanding of mechanics, or of the way that others might use mechanics - and their criticisms of those others are bundled in a package of "narrative" and "verisimilitude" and "roleplaying, not rollplaying" and "of course metagaming is bad", it is frustrating. And, as CJ said, sometimes nasty.

If people want a game with hit points and with something like archery/falling grittiness, use hit points as a dodging mechanic. As I posted somewhere upthread, Roger Musson (as best I know) was the first to publish a version of this, in White Dwarf 30+ years ago. But - as Musson himself observed - it will require a wholesale rewriting of the saving throw, ambush etc rules. As others have pointed out in recent threads here (maybe including this one) it will also require changing the rules for delivering poison via attacks (ie no poison on "hits" that are really successful dodges).

But I have some doubts that WotC will go very far in this direction. It's one thing to have modules that change the build of a PC, and some of the details of action resolution. It's another thing to have modules that change the balance of play in relation to game elements (eg archers, or dragons, or cliffs, suddenly become noticeably more dangerous than trolls and ogres, compared to the game's basline assumptions). Because the latter sort of variability will make it hard for WotC to write and sell adventures.

On a final, sem-side note: 4e is the first version of the game, I think, to increase falling damage - from 1d6 per 10' to 1d10. It also tones down PC hit point escalation at higher levels compared to 3E (because there is no CON bonus per level). Should some of these 4e innovations be maintained?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Such a large change would require a great deal of space in the books to explain. This is not something you could do in a paragraph, or even a page. This is something that will take up a lot of space.

1) If you ever have damage on you equal to your regular hit points + 10, you're dead.
2) In addition to hit points, you also have temporary hit points (THP). THP represent your character’s ability to avoid blows completely, and a sort of in-combat stamina. Whenever you would take any damage, you lose that much THP, and negate that many points of damage. As such, THP are always the first hit points lost. If an attack damages you and does no regular HP damage (it only takes away temporary hit points), then you take no attached ill effect (from status effects, spells, etc.), as you avoid the effect completely.
3) All HP at first level at regular HP, and all HP gained afterwards is considered THP.
4) You recover 1/10th of your HP per day, minimum of 1. You recover all of your THP after a short rest (a couple minutes of catching your breath). You don't regain THP if you can't rest (you can't breathe, you're vigorously climbing, etc.).
5) Certain things bypass THP, and deal damage to your regular HP directly. Such things include falls, coup de graces, being on fire, falling onto lava, etc. You don't get THP or Reflex saves in certain scenarios (you're helpless, etc.).
6) If you're attacked multiple times, you take a cumulative -1 penalty to your AC or Reflex save until the beginning of your next turn (when the penalty resets to 0).
7) If you want to convert monsters to the THP model as well (for things like orc warriors), they have regular hit points equal to (formula for 1st level HP), and all the rest is considered THP. Oftentimes, monsters have full regular hit points (like dragons).

The above changes mean that 12 archers are a problem for things that don't have good damage reduction or a way to surprise/kill them quickly, while things like armored giants and dragons and balors and pit fiends can all remain highly dangerous. So, epic fights for adventurer (or "hero") PCs are reserved.

What about things like orcs and goblins? Well, they'd better be equipped well enough (and in great enough numbers) to fight those archers. Maybe the town can only keep them at bay, and need help clearing them out. Maybe the country is busy with its troops, or is politically tied down with infighting, or just doesn't care, and the locals have enough money to scrape together something for the PCs. Definitely ways to make that work.

With this method, falling onto lava, off of cliffs, etc. are all just as dangerous at level 10 as they are at level 1 (you never want to let it happen if you can help it). What if you want to be more tough later on? Grab a feat that adds to your regular hit points. That'll add another 6 lines or so onto the above. Still a lot less than a page.

Do the changes above alter how the setting is assumed to work? Well, sure they do. Low level guys just got more dangerous in groups. Falling off cliffs or into lava is just as dangerous at all levels. These are things I think that a certain subset (in this thread) want to see changed. And you don't need 20 pages to do it, either.

The dragon can always get a clean hit. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never does. The PC dodges, the dragon get's distracted and only nips instead of crushing, etc.

The fall can always kill. But, while the PC has hit points remaining, it never does. The PC slows his/her descent on ledges, branches, etc, their is a stream/pool at the bottom (as per the quote upthread from Moldvay Basic), or something similar.

I addressed that, too. Don't get all hung up on the wording, as context clearly matters more than that. I've expressed why people are getting thrown out of their suspension of disbelief. In standard fantasy genre, you would expect the hero to be able to take on the dragon, and people want mechanics to reflect that reality, especially "at full mojo". What they don't expect is falling onto lava and living at full mojo. That's not the niche they want HP to fill, and it's not what they expect out of the game (falling is in a little bit of a grey area here, but can easily go either way, in my mind).

We're still back to fantasy tropes and player expectations. People expect you to be able to take on a dragon in the game. People don't expect you falling onto lava and then jumping out. It's just player expectation. Yes, it's subjective, but is it any wonder that there's a double standard here, when the goal of many is to capture a game feel that adheres to their sense of verisimilitude based on their exposure to the genre the game is based on? As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I would say though, in fantasy genre, when the hero jumps off a cliff, he survives.

Or, if the hero falls off the ledge towards lava, there's a convenient outcropping to land on so that he doesn't actually fall into the lava.

Nearly every time. So, why is it different? Why does the dragon get the pass because of genre tropes, but, falling doesn't? You have no problem blurring the believability line in one case, but the other is much more difficult?

You are arguing that it's believable because of genre conventions. Why don't genre conventions apply in all cases?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I would say though, in fantasy genre, when the hero jumps off a cliff, he survives.

I admit falling is more grey (said that, too). However, falls are often depicted as being very, very dangerous, too, thus the expectation that they will be if the hero falls.

Or, if the hero falls off the ledge towards lava, there's a convenient outcropping to land on so that he doesn't actually fall into the lava.

Pretty sure most people thought that if Frodo fell onto the lava, he'd die. Lava is also depicted as dangerous. Thus, the expectation

Nearly every time. So, why is it different? Why does the dragon get the pass because of genre tropes, but, falling doesn't? You have no problem blurring the believability line in one case, but the other is much more difficult?

I've been over this too many times. Go and reread my posts.

You are arguing that it's believable because of genre conventions. Why don't genre conventions apply in all cases?

Frequency. The dragon is depicted as dangerous, but not "death" in most scenarios. When the hero is pushed towards the ledge by the villain, it's a tense moment because the fall will kill him (just like it kills the villain when the hero flips him over it). As always, play what you like

 

[Minigiant]

@JamersonCourage

Even with your rules I still don't see how a level 15 fighter losses to a dozen 1st level archers. He'll kill them all way before he take 125+ damage.