Falling from Great Heights

[Elf Witch]

But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.

No it doesn't. Unless she is training every day in sword play.

In my games some cities have very competent guardsmen and armies that drill often and keep their skills up.

Some don't and those would be easy pickings for the PCs.

It is what I have done to give my game a more Shadowrun like feel while still playing DnD.

As someone else said levels is a metagame concept not a world concept. So as a purely a mechanic I use to keep the world interesting. At first level the city guard is more powerful then the PCs as the PCs gain experience they become more powerful then the city guard but never to the point that the guard is nothing to worry about.

I am not saying with planning and the right magic that the PCS could not take on an army or a city guard and win but it is because they planned well not because the guard was no threat at all.

 

[BryonD]

Neither stating it nor implying it. As I said, "the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access."

The players know they have the relevant resources (at least in standard D&D, in which players track their own hit points, roll their own saving throws knowing their bonuses, etc; and the approach that seems to have had some sway in the early 80s, of GMs tracking hp and telling players "You feel strong", "You feel pretty beaten up", etc, seems to rely heavily on hp-as-meat - of which I'm not a big fan).

And to all that I say: Cool

But Hussar has said they can act upon that expectation. So you don't appear to be defending the point I am disputing.

The situation Hussar and I were discussing was based around a flat statement that his *characters* knew they could drink a carboy of poison because all they had to do was not roll a 1.

All the characters Hussar mentioned surrender at various points in the movies. If they knew that their hero status would see them through anything, then there would be no reason for them to surrender.
If given an option to either surrender or drink a carboy of deadly poison, Bond would surrender. Skywalker would surrender. Jones would absolutely surrender.
But by Hussar's model there is no reason whatsoever to surrender. And if the movies followed Hussar's model the movies would suck.

Well, in most games with an action point or fate point mechanic it would be expected that players would plan around their possession of such resources. I don't think hit points are very different. And, indeed, Raven Crowking used to argue that it was via this process that hit points achieve a type of "impairment effect": players whose PCs have fewer of them will play more cautiously and less recklessly.

My own view is that if you don't want players to play their PCs keeping in mind their access to metagame resources, don't give them the resources. If I want to play a game without metagame, I will play a system whose mechanics support that. There are many such good systems available - Runquest is in my view just about the best on any objective measure, but for reasons of nostalgia and quirkiness I have a very soft spot for Rolemaster. I've never played GURPS, HERO or C&S but I'm sure any of them does a reasonable job also.

TL;DR: What's the point of giving PCs hit points if players are not expected to use them?

It is very important to point out that the topic I'm disputing with Hussar is specifically instant death situations. (Carboy of poison, staring contest with Medusa, immersion in lava, etc...).

The point of the experience (TO ME) is to simulate the experience of being inside the shoes (and brain) of the characters. Those character DO know that they are tough and cool and can take a beating. There are times when HP work great and players having knowledge of HP is perfectly fine. I frequently have players makes statement such as "no problem" or "If I take that again I'm going down." And, as you describe, HP work perfectly well for this circumstance.

But there are also times when they don't work. And, IME, these events are highly self evident. Having an in-character player know he can probably take a few more slugs from the ogre before it gets really bad is ok. And even with that, it pretty much presumes they are using knowledge of the hit that just happened as a basis, a crit could be a different story and they are aware of that. I've seen players eyes get big when that first ghit did a lot more damage than they expected. And they change their plans QUICK.

But *KNOWING* I can drink this vast quantity of deadly poison is something else altogether. As I see it is impossible to be in character and also truly think it is no big deal to drink it. HP have nothing to do with that.


Let me just ask you: when YOU watch a movie do you think Bond or others plan ahead in that meta manner? I can accept that being truly like a movie may be meaningless to you. But can you accept that it may be the heart of the experience to me and that it makes huge difference in this conversation?

 

[Steely_Dan]

No it doesn't..

Yes, it does; that is why i have carved that unnecessary 1/2 level bonus malarkey from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills (oh, also reducing monster HP has helped).

 

[Elf Witch]

Yes, it does; that is why i have carved that unnecessary 1/2 level bonus malarkey from all character's and monster's attacks, defences and skills (oh, also reducing monster HP has helped).

So she is now a 13 level barmaid skilled in maneuvering around drunk patrons who she puts her dodge bonus on to avoid having her butt pinched and she never spills a drop of ale.

 

[Libramarian]

Concrete HP can mean everything from "meat" (literal physical toughness) to psycho-emotional elements like morale, courage, will, stamina, focus, energy, vigor etc. All of these elements map to something in-game. People depleted in these capacities look and feel different -- they're run down, haggard, tired and beat up. The difference that makes the difference here is between all of these concrete HP factors, and HP factors that are completely metagame like "luck", "divine favor", "plot protection", "fate points" etc. Concrete HP vs. meta HP.

Going meta with HP should clearly be a last resort, from a design perspective. It's not something to relish in itself. It's a tradeoff that might be worth it, might not. Concrete factors are better on the face of it -- they inform and enrich the fiction. Most players, most of the time, enjoy it when you take your half-dead character into town and NPCs notice and say things like "oh my! you need to get to a healer!" etc. If you like that, then you like concrete HP, whether or not you want the game to actually describe particular wounds in detail.

Maybe some players some of the time would appreciate the story flexibility of being able to waltz a half-dead character around the palace ball without having people remark they look terrible and should go rest. But a) how common is that, and b) a player who wants to go meta with HP in the first place ought not to have a problem temporarily disengaging the default concrete HP interpretation on a case by case basis. The default should be concrete HP. The game should say, as you take damage, you become perceptibly wounded and tired, which brings you closer and closer to making a fatal mistake in combat. Falling also causes the same sort of damage, because it gives you sprains and strains that have the same effect.

 

[Hussar]

So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge? Are you saying that inside their head is not just a hope but a secret knowledge of the rules not applying to them and a stacked deck to keep them alive.

The meta information exists. That is fine.
But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star. And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.

No, my point is that the characters in these movies have no thoughts at all. Why? Because they are fictional constructs. You can roleplay being afraid all you like, but, at the end of the day, they never balk at doing the suicidal. They jump out of the airplane, they close the door to the refrigerator (boo) and they take the swan dive down the chute rather than be taken prisoner by their newly discovered father.

The heart of roleplay is portrayal. I can portray that my character is scared out of his bleeding mind, but, at the end of the day, it is still the player who is going to make the choices.

Since I don't play 4E I would not know this. Which is why I said I would like to see rules in 5E to address it.

A red dragon is not the same threat as 25 archers. A dragon especially one that has the upper and is in the air and knows the PCs are coming for it is a huge threat and that is how it should be for a beast that can fly , breath nasty stuff on you and if it wants can grapple and take off and drop you from high in the air.

That being said while 25 archers should not be the same threat as the dragon they should still pose some kind of risk not be a cake walk.

I tend to level my city guard and things like that as the players level not as high but enough the make a decent challenge. I have been told by many people that this is not in the RAW or the RAI and just bad DMing.

Never said anything about 4e, other than how 4e would resolve it. Your choice to make the city guard similar level to the PC's is exactly how 4e would resolve the issue and, IMO, probably the best way of doing it.

But, let's get back to the example here. In an open fight between a 15th level party and a CR 15 dragon or any other creature for that matter, the party is expected to win. Sure, it might be damaging, but, it's supposed to eat up about 20% of the party's resources. By 15th level, the fighter should not be limited to the ground - he should have the resources to let him fly, at least for a while. Heck, the cleric drops Air Walk (or whatever that spell is that lets you walk on air) on the party and now everyone can fly.

What happens when 20-25 archers face that same dragon? They die. They die very, very quickly. The dragon doesn't even lose hit points in all probability.

So, if you want you 20-25 archers to be a credible threat to the party, they have to be equal to a CR 15 creature. That's the only way to do it. Which is what you've done by upping their levels.

The main problem is that people want level to have some sort of in-game meaning. Town guards are 3rd level warriors, simply because that satisfies a certain group's view of verisimilitude. It doesn't make sense for town guards to be 13th level. Why would they be 13th level and not the lord of the town?

And, if you insist that level has in game meaning, then this makes sense. OTOH, if you accept that level is a meta-game construct, then there's no problem with scaling guards. Guards are Party Level-2 because that makes for better in game fiction. What are the guards when the party is not around? Who cares? If the DM wants the marauding orcs to pillage the town, they pillage the town.

I think I just heard a simulationist break a tooth.

 

[Hussar]

The situation Hussar and I were discussing was based around a flat statement that his *characters* knew they could drink a carboy of poison because all they had to do was not roll a 1.

Wait, what? I never said that. See my above reply.

 

[Hussar]

This whole thread reminds me of that great scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On05op_Md38]The Best scene in movie history. - YouTube[/ame]

Now, this would be great roleplay. The characters debate the merits of their action, but, when push comes to shove, they jump. Why do they jump? Well, the in game reason is that they really have no choice (at least they don't think they do - as surrender isn't apparently an option). But, outside the game? I think the conversation looks a lot like this:

Player1 - "Dude, we'll jump!"
Player2 - "No way. We'll die."
Player1 - "No, look, it's 50 feet, we've got 35 hit points, we'll probably survive the jump. You want to be captured?"
Player2 - "Grrr... DM, is there any other way out that I can see?"
DM - "No, it's pretty much what you've got. Captured, starved out, outflanked and likely shot to death or... jump. I can't BELIEVE you're considering that."
Player1 - "You want to live forever? Come on! It'll be epic!"
Player2 - "All right. We jump!"
DM - ((Rolling)) You take, aw dammit! You take 19 points of damage from the fall. I'll get you next time!"

I don't know about you, but, I can totally see that conversation at a gaming table.

 

[pemerton]

I think I just heard a simulationist break a tooth.

It's not even about simulationists breaking teeth, I don't think. It's about people trying to satisfy their simulationinst sensibilities using an engine that - at certain key points, like the hp rules - doesn't work that way. And is precisely designed not to work that way!

For those who want deadly falls and poison but non-deadly giant's clubs, maybe what they need is a system of dodge bonuses, where dodging acts as damage reduction in some fashion. (The most obvious way to simulate hit points would be a level-based divisor.)

But then new corner cases will come up, as they always do (say in W/V) systems: what happens to someone chained to the rockface and breathed on by the dragon, for instance? Looks like certain death to me (a la staring at a Medusa) - yet Gygax expressly calls this out (in his DMG) as a circumstance in which a saving throw is allowed!

 

[fenriswolf456]

Addressing a couple of points made a few pages back addressed at me.

However, the point is, he does walk on broken glass and that doesn't stop him. Nor does it do any lasting damage to him as we see him pull the glass out of his feet, wrap himself up and off he toddles for the rest of the movie.

Y'know what happens when you pull large shards of glass from your feet in the real world? You bleed profusely and are likely not going anywhere for several days. You don't then proceed to go running all over a building.

My point was that he didn't cross the broken glass lightly. He saw the only way out, and then saw the glass, and you could almost hear the "Oh s@*&". In the end, he gritted his teeth and made his escape. I have absolutely no problem with this, and even expect it in heroic portrayal. It's almost a definition of hero, to appraise a situation as dangerous, but to forge ahead anyway, even at great self-cost, because it has to be done.

What I would like out of my gaming sessions, whether D&D or not, is for that kind of 'realistic thought' to transfer into the characters as they're portrayed.

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?

My reply is much along the same as JamesonCourage explained a couple of posts later. It's not about whether a band of country bandits is a credible threat to an ancient dragon, it's whether they are to the PCs. And to me, unless the PCs are knowingly immune to normal weapons, multiple crossbows aimed at them by a large number of trained marksmen should at least give them pause. Because a crossbow bolt to the face should be a credible threat to a PC, even if they are verging on godhood (and given that gods are statted with given HP, they have become just as mortal as everyone else).

No, my point is that the characters in these movies have no thoughts at all. Why? Because they are fictional constructs. You can roleplay being afraid all you like, but, at the end of the day, they never balk at doing the suicidal. They jump out of the airplane, they close the door to the refrigerator (boo) and they take the swan dive down the chute rather than be taken prisoner by their newly discovered father.

The heart of roleplay is portrayal. I can portray that my character is scared out of his bleeding mind, but, at the end of the day, it is still the player who is going to make the choices.

A bit generalized. Some characters do balk at the suicidal, if they don't have to face it (e.g., opening scene to Indiana Jones where he runs from the tribal natives). Given life or death situations, sure, they make snap decisions and follow through on them because that's what heroes do, but few do it with a mere shrug.

That's part of the appeal of games like 4E to me, as it can give us characters that are above the norm, able to take a beating and keep going. To make that dramatic choice, even if it amounts to actual little threat to the character's survival because they have a great big pool of HP.

I would like to dial in the fact that the characters are still vulnerable beings that are aware of their own mortality. But I do appreciate that there are others who prefer their D&D to be more 'super', which they can also hopefully dial in to.