Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Scribble]

Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game. You can go to jail in Monopoly, too, through no fault of your own. If the Monopoly player starts whining about how unfair it is that he drew a Community Chest card that makes him pay the banker, I'd have no sympathy for him, either -- and I doubt I would want to play Monopoly with him again. As the man said, "You knew the risks when you sat at the table."

Not sure if this is a valid/fair comparrison.

Yes, in Monopoly sometimes chance dictates bad things happen to you. Sometimes you need to spend resources (Money) on things that don't benefit you. (paying rent, paying the banker, etc...) Sometimes you end up loosing a turn or two through bad luck. (You pull the go to jail card.)

Same as in D&D. Soemtimes you have to spend resources (actions, healing surges, potions, powers, etc) just countering a negative effect.

Bad luck + negative consequences should play a part in any game. I agree.

However, in Monopoloy I think you might hear a LOT more complaints if there happened to be a card or two that simply said- You loose.

"Oh great, I drew the you loose card again. Lame."

The various unhelpful events you can have happen to you can be annoying, and can help contribute to your loss of the game overall sure, but none of them equate to an instant "you're now out of the game" effect that you cannot change.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Oh great, I drew the you loose card again. Lame."

I don't equate dying or failing in D&D with losing the game.

YMMV.



RC

 

[GlaziusF]

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.

...

Did that answer your question?

No, not at all. Boundaries. Upper and lower. Unless you want to say "0% to 100%". In which case, yes.

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?

Yes, actually, I do.

Consider orc with greataxe vs. 30th-level fighter.

The orc can still instakill the 30th-level fighter, if he rolls a 20, then a 20 to confirm, then over 50 damage (let's say that happens 1 time in 100), then the fighter rolls a natural 1 on his fort save.

That's... 800,000 to 1 odds.

Do you think the fighter regards his death at the hands of the orc as an obvious potential consequence? I don't.

Ad hoc probability calculations, such as you might perform in your head at the table, only have about 3 bits of precision (because ad hoc probabilities are constructed from "sample outcomes" rather than computed, and you can consider maybe 8 sample outcomes at a time) meaning you can just about break down probability in 1/8 increments.

So anything with probability less than about 1/8 is going to get ignored, either because it's rounded down, or because it's rounded up and people learn through experience that it's really not that high.

In short: Yes, in a system where success is influenced by random chance, there are some probabilities of failure so low that people may acknowledge them as theoretically probable but they will not consider them to be practically possible. They will not, then, be obvious.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, not at all. Boundaries. Upper and lower. Unless you want to say "0% to 100%". In which case, yes.

I don't have inflexible upper and lower boundaries.

Do you think the fighter regards his death at the hands of the orc as an obvious potential consequence? I don't.

Nor do I consider death by hangnail an obvious potential consequence. But our fighter, going into dark and dangerous places, damn well ought to consider the possibility of there being more than an orc to deal with.



RC

 

[Scribble]

I don't equate dying or failing in D&D with losing the game.

YMMV.



RC

Be that as it may, the point still stands.

If your goal is to bring a character from level 1 up to level whatever you want to end at- instant death is as significant as a "you loose" card in monopoly. It's a jarring halt to your plan through no action of your own other then playing the game.

You might enjoy a game where instant death occurs true, just like some might enjoy a monopoly with a "you loose" card.

I'm just saying I don't think the negative parts of monopoly are a fair equal to the negative parts of instant death D&D.

 

[pemerton]

1st ed AD&D had virtually no action resolution mechanics outside of combat. 2nd ed AD&D had a little bit more, but not much. 3rd ed had more again, but the combat mechanics are still the majority of the action resolution mechanics. The same is true of 4e (which uses the comparatively abstract skill challenge system as a catch-all for non-combat action resolution).

This suggests that combat is intended to be a significant part of the game.

Given that, I think it is does not really get to the heart of the matter simply to suggest that a player whose PC ends up confronting an orc with a greataxe, losing initiative, and dying to a critical hit has suffered the proper consequences of a meaningful choice (to go into places full of orcs).

If that suggestion were correct, it would appear to follow that there was nothing meaningful to be said about whether AD&D, 3E or 4e was the better-designed dungeon adventure roleplaying game - that the potentially one-shot lethality of the orc with the greataxe, which is a feature of 3E far more than of AD&D or 4e, was not up for grabs as an example of good or bad design.

In fact I think that that question is up for grabs, and I think that removing that potential oneshot lethality improves the design of a dungeon adventure roleplaying game, by ensuring that where lethality is encountered it is a genuine consequence of a sequence of choices that the player experienced as being meaningful and under his/her control (other than the choice to have his/her PC go on an adventure, which is - given that we are playing a dungeon adventure RPG - not really a choice at all).

 

[pemerton]

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.

Or, as I have pointed out numerous times, eveyone at the table can agree to have sufficient time pass between episodes to satisfy their demand for verisimilitudinous healing.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Be that as it may, the point still stands.

No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing. There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character. If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived. And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Or, as I have pointed out numerous times, eveyone at the table can agree to have sufficient time pass between episodes to satisfy their demand for verisimilitudinous healing.

You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution. Why have this period of time when the game allows you to heal up (unbelievably as it were) overnight? Do the players or DM just decide that "hey, my healing surges don't work because I have a bad injury". I mean, how do you even determine if you have a bad injury? You guys spent so much time trying to convince me that 1hp away from negative bloodied wasn't that bad before. The question then is: so when do I then say that a serious injury has been incurred?

My interpretation of this (and the whole reason why I introduced the whole hp thing to the thread way back when) is that flavour has been sacrificed for a game mechanic that keeps the game running more smoothly and keeps all characters involved for longer by reducing the healing workload of the Cleric. A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Delta]

Interesting thought. 3E is bettered by earlier editions there. (Excluding 4E only because the risk of instant death is much less in that edition.)

Yes, I agree.