Falling from Great Heights

[fenriswolf456]

Epic heroes can create worlds.

Sauron failed to conquer a world of weak beings because a little hairy homebody found a piece of jewelry.

That would be dependent on the system and story. At least in 4E, I see little to suggest world creation in the Epic Tier. Characters are certaily powerful, but I'm not seeing such godhood until Level 30+.

Considering the magic-poor realm of Middle Earth, I would certainly peg a demi-god like Sauron as an Epic level threat, perhaps low Epic for the trilogy since a lot of his power is tied up in the One Ring. But it's apparent that Epic for you is a step beyond what I see presented in the PHBs.

So if the character has previously sipped such poison, and didn't die, and has an in-character reason to know that he probably won't die from doing it again, that's still "metagaming"?

You're twisting the intent of the statement. It wouldn't be metagaming at all, since the character did not die the first time, it's prefectly reasonable and realistic that they would think they wouldn't die if they were by chance exposed to it again.

It's not so reasonable for someone to think "Oh, I didn't die the first time, that must mean that I never will."

By in-world logic, player characters of sufficiently high level should know that they're fairly immune to being killed -- because they do it routinely.

That seems a logical fallacy to me. Just because you haven't died, doesn't mean you can't. I cross the street a dozen times a day without dying, but I certainly wouldn't just blindly step out into the road everytime I do.

If their characters are afraid of getting hurt and would avoid harm even when they could benefit, then they're not roleplaying well. If their characters are daredevils who don't mind pain if it assures victory, there's no reason to complain because everything is working as intended.

If you don't like the characters your players are playing, using rules as a bludgeon to make them change seems like it may just make things less fun for them.

It comes down to play style at this point. I see it totally opposite. If a player plays their character as afraid of getting hurt, but does it anyway, I think they're roleplaying much better than the player who's a daredevil because they knows the game rules won't allow them to be in danger.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

 

[Incenjucar]

That would be dependent on the system and story. At least in 4E, I see little to suggest world creation in the Epic Tier. Characters are certaily powerful, but I'm not seeing such godhood until Level 30+.

In 4E, epic destinies such as Plane Shaper, Demiurge, or Master Hierophant.

In 3E, powers such as Genesis, which isn't even an epic level power.

Considering the magic-poor realm of Middle Earth, I would certainly peg a demi-god like Sauron as an Epic level threat, perhaps low Epic for the trilogy since a lot of his power is tied up in the One Ring. But it's apparent that Epic for you is a step beyond what I see presented in the PHBs.

We're talking in the D&D scale. That Sauron is the top tier threat of his world doesn't matter anymore than if Gargamel is the deadliest threat in the Smurf world. He may be Epic to a Smurf but he's not Epic to Elminster.

 

[SageMinerve]

So if the character has previously sipped such poison, and didn't die, and has an in-character reason to know that he probably won't die from doing it again, that's still "metagaming"?

By in-world logic, player characters of sufficiently high level should know that they're fairly immune to being killed -- because they do it routinely.

No, that's not metagaming. Metagaming is when a player makes an in-game/world/character decision based on out-of-game/world/character informations; e.g. the player knows that poison X is dealing 50 damage, and since his 75 hp character won't die from it, he decides the character can safely drink from it.

In the situation you describe, that's not what's happening: the character (as opposed to the player) has a perfectly valid in-game reason to think he can drink the poison.

 

[SageMinerve]

In 4E, epic destinies such as Plane Shaper, Demiurge, or Master Hierophant.

In 3E, powers such as Genesis, which isn't even an epic level power.



We're talking in the D&D scale. That Sauron is the top tier threat of his world doesn't matter anymore than if Gargamel is the deadliest threat in the Smurf world. He may be Epic to a Smurf but he's not Epic to Elminster.

I'm sorry, but if Sauron isn't epic-worthy, there's not a SINGLE non-deity entry in any monster manuals, in any edition, that's worthy of being epic.

And everybody knows it's the smurfet that's the deadliest threat.

 

[SteveC]

I find the falling damage rules to be very important to me when I'm deciding to play with a new GM. If the GM says "I've got these lethal houserules because falling damage is so unrealistic..." it's my first indication that the game will not be for me.

I always treat damage from falling is something my character doesn't really know about in character. As a high level character, I know as a player I can survive that 100 foot fall, but my character does not. I just roleplay it that way. If I do fall, and survive, I'd treat it as something that was great luck, and keep on moving. There's a huge difference between what I know the rules say my character can do, and what he thinks he can. For me, it's just that simple.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If LotR were an epic-level campaign, the game range would have no room for the Silmarillion.

Sauron wasn't an epic-level threat because he was the lingering remnant of a demigod, not a demigod in truth. If he'd gotten the ring back, that would be different.

 

[SageMinerve]

If LotR were an epic-level campaign, the game range would have no room for the Silmarillion.

Sauron wasn't an epic-level threat because he was the lingering remnant of a demigod, not a demigod in truth. If he'd gotten the ring back, that would be different.

1) Since when being a demigod a requirement for being an epic-level threat?
2) You know there's a whole range of epic levels, right? We might argue about Sauron being low 20s, mid 20s, high 20s; the fact is that they're all epic levels, and I sincerely think that painting Sauron as a Paragon-level threat is a misrepresentation, especially considering:
3) Sauron was a Maiar, the highest and most cunning servant of Melkor/Morgoth, so IMO there's no doubt that if you consider the First Age/Silmarillion era as being epic, than Sauron HAS to be an epic threat. That remains true until he makes the One Ring in the 2nd Age, where he becomes even more powerful.

There's no doubt that his death (when Numenor is sunk) and the loss of the One Ring were a severe blow to him; I'd probably remove a few levels off him (how many levels is hard to say without knowing exactly his "best" level and how much of his Essence he put in the Ring).

As for the argument that he's only a "lingering remnant" of a demigod, I'd say that if it were so, then:

1) Saruman wouldn't have been so terrified of him;
2) Any of the Wise (The elven Ring bearers, the Wizards, etc.) could have confronted Sauron directly. It clearly isn't the case.

 

[pemerton]

IMO, D&D is one of the easiest and simplest systems to play (barring stripped down D20 games), and one of the easiest to tweak and modify. And, I don't believe that realistic and simple are counterintuitive. It may be harder to achieve from a design perspective, but if one really does the work, then it can be done.

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.

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

 

[Libramarian]

Change the fiction? Change what fiction? The rules state that..

He fell
Something happens
He hit the ground
He took ~70 damage
He lived.

D&D doesn't say what the "something happens" is. That is the core problem.

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.

I disagree that there is a heavy simulationism/anti-simulationism issue.

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.