Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[BryonD]

I assume you are claiming that I am being hypocritical, rather than agreeing that you have asked Hussar to do the same. Fair enough.

No, sorry. I've been in plenty of debates with Hussar and needing to repeatedly request that he stop putting words in my mouth and radically changing things I said is a standard part.

 

[BryonD]

That might be the difference. I'm not trying to simulate John McClane and, every time I hear John McClane (or Inigo Montoya) mentioned, I cringe. There's nothing wrong with wanting that style, but it is something I might only tolerate for a specific d20Modern campaign. I just don't want it when playing DND.

You know, its kinda funny. In no prior edition of D&D did anyone ever suggest that you *couldn't* do John McClane. To the contrary, 4E just seems to have moved a slight step further away as I see it.

The cliche example is the cut feet and then all better. In no prior edition of D&D has being hurt impaired a character as McClane was. In any prior edition the wound had no slowing effect. To be like McClane, you simply had to play it up. (which is fine) But in any edition, the character will be going fine in the next scene, even without healing, because the wounds don't hamper him. However, in any edition prior to 4th, the character will eventually need medical care (typically magical in D&D), just like McClane. 4E is the first game to allow total full recovery with no consideration of why or how at all.

Either all wounds short of the killing blow are not really injury, they are just loss of mojo that can be brought back with a deep breath, which I find unsatisfactory, or all characters can close all wounds with enough lamaze technique, which is I find unsatisfactory.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, that seems too often the case. At least in "classic" dungeons.

I dunno. Look at Keep on the Borderlands. Each enclave has guards that are expected to give effective notice; notes are given on how monsters might aid each other.

Indeed, one of the things we were told about 4e was that we were going to go back to hordes of humanoids, and away from the 1-room/1-encounter methodology where it made no sense.

Also, @ pemerton, by the time Sam rescues Frodo, the nature of the orcs is so well established (in Mordor and Out) that Tolkein's work makes sense. Nor is what happens without consequences to the storyline.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, sorry. I've been in plenty of debates with Hussar and needing to repeatedly request that he stop putting words in my mouth and radically changing things I said is a standard part.

Sorry to hear that.

I'll readily admit that, in trying to better understand someone's point, I'll reword it as a kind of double-check. If they agree with what I'm saying with the rewording, I assume I understood the original. So, that could easily be seen as putting words into someone's mouth. Especially when my rewording demonstrates that I have failed to understand the original point.

And this can happen to anyone. MerricB started a thread based on the idea that I think 4e isn't lethal (whereas, I think that it is either very lethal [when challenging] or not lethal [and not challenging]). This is a misunderstanding; I would never ascribe malice to MerricB! And, based on his thread, once I had corrected the initial idea ascribed to be, I have discovered that I am not alone in thinking this.

However, I have had the same experience as you have in this particular case, far too often. Thanks for sharing your condolences.


RC

 

[GlaziusF]

There's a difference between discussing the merits of a game system -- which may well be a necessary component of choosing/modifying to your taste -- and agreeing to play a game, then whining about the obvious potential consequences thereof.

But as I've said upthread, death and failure are not obvious potential consequences. If they were, they wouldn't be such poor surprises.

People are terrible at processing and thinking about long odds. Not terrible in the sense of "they generally don't do it enough", terrible in the sense of "trying to do something beyond human capability".

 

[Raven Crowking]

But as I've said upthread, death and failure are not obvious potential consequences.

If they are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.

RC

 

[Plane Sailing]

It looks like the thread nearly swerved into unhelpful terrain (commenting about other peoples posting styles that someone doesn't get on with). It looks as though we've moved away from that which is great - please continue to concentrate on the issue rather than personalities.

Thanks!

 

[GlaziusF]

If they are not obvious potential consequences to you, we probably differ too much in our experiences to draw a consensus.

RC

Really?

Okay, let me probe some then.

Consider the orc-with-a-greataxe example. There were three events the players could not control there:

1. the orc's attack roll including confirmed crit
2. the orc's damage roll
3. the save vs. massive damage

To you, what are the acceptable boundaries for the odds that events players cannot control will lead to death or failure?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really?

Okay, let me probe some then.

Consider the orc-with-a-greataxe example. There were three events the players could not control there:

1. the orc's attack roll including confirmed crit
2. the orc's damage roll
3. the save vs. massive damage

To begin with, I don't accept this premise, as it relates to actual game play. Only by pulling this example out of any sort of reasonable context can you create an example in which the player has no input.

I note that some games begin with a combat, in which the players have no input. This is, IMHO, pulled out of reasonable context (although it is generally given context later), and it is incumbant upon the DM to limit lethality accordingly.

That said, I will agree that at some point every encounter can narrow down to a point in which the player(s) no longer have meaningful choices. Once the orc's turn is up, and the axe is swinging, for example. And it is in this context that I answer the next bit.

To you, what are the acceptable boundaries for the odds that events players cannot control will lead to death or failure?

Eventually, if a character dies, the odds have narrowed down to 100%. If they did not narrow down to 100%, the character would not be dead.

This is acceptable, to me, if the DM has been fair, and the death or failure is simply a matter of odds. If you had a chance to Gather Information and you didn't, or the clues were laid out and you didn't see them. If the DM isn't trying to kill you. (You can't beat a DM who is trying to kill you, after all.) There may, of course, always be issues of competence in designing/running encounters. But such issues have little to do with the general idea that it sucks that curing mummy rot keeps you from leaping into the next dungeon, IMHO.

It is never okay to throw a tantrum at the table. It is always okay to seek (or devise) a game more in line with what you enjoy.

Did that answer your question?


RC


EDIT: And here's a question of my own: Do you actually believe that, in a system wherein success is determined in whole or in part by random factors that failure is not an obvious potential consequence of that system?

 

[ExploderWizard]

There may, of course, always be issues of competence in designing/running encounters. But such issues have little to do with the general idea that it sucks that curing mummy rot keeps you from leaping into the next dungeon, IMHO.

It is never okay to throw a tantrum at the table. It is always okay to seek (or devise) a game more in line with what you enjoy.

Very well said. For an example of bad adventure/ encounter design, check out this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...tpk-warning-keep-shadowfell-spoiler-info.html