Forked Thread: Shaking it Off

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmmm.

One of the design goals of my varient is to promote sandbox play. It is my express intent to flatten the CR curve. Within that context, I certainly don't have a problem with challenging players.

RC

Well, I certainly have no idea what the rest of your system will look like. But treating it just as a houserule for 3E, it won't fix my problems with it.

Though I am not sure I see how you fix the problem with a flatter power-curve. It looks more to me as if the problem becomes more pronounced - the difference between 50 % and 100 % hit points should become even more important if the power curve is flatter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Though I am not sure I see how you fix the problem with a flatter power-curve. It looks more to me as if the problem becomes more pronounced - the difference between 50 % and 100 % hit points should become even more important if the power curve is flatter.

???????



Let's imagine a completely flat curve for the moment. All you fight are single goblins, regardless of level. Clearly, it is still true that the more hit points you have the better, but I fail to see how being able to shake off 5, 10, etc., points of damage after each fight make things more difficult for the players.

Extrapolating this to various levels of curve, the ability to automatically restore some portion of hit points is never a bad thing.

It is almost as though you are saying that Cure Light Wounds (for example) is bad.

(Or, say, healing surges? )

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

???????



Let's imagine a completely flat curve for the moment. All you fight are single goblins, regardless of level. Clearly, it is still true that the more hit points you have the better, but I fail to see how being able to shake off 5, 10, etc., points of damage after each fight make things more difficult for the players.

Extrapolating this to various levels of curve, the ability to automatically restore some portion of hit points is never a bad thing.

It is almost as though you are saying that Cure Light Wounds (for example) is bad.

(Or, say, healing surges? )

It seems I am not expressing myself clearly. Sorry for that.

A "challenging" fight is any fight in where there is a risk of dying. Barring save or die spells, this means taking enough damage to drop to 0 hit points.
If you support an encounter design on the idea that individual encounters should be "challenging", it is not unreasonable to assume that some encounters drop you to 0 hit points. (Depending situation and tactics - sometimes it might be possible to spread the damage around, sometimes not).
If your healing mechanism doesn't allow me to bring my character back to full hit points, this means all following combats that were planned as "challenging" become "deadly". (Not always actually deadly, but often enough)

The biggest problem for me as a DM is the unpredictability part - it is possible that this doesn't happen anytime soon. Or it happens in the first combat, due to bad luck, stupid tactics, or whatever. But suddenly the entire adventure pacing hinges on this random element.

But the general problem is still - you have two definitions for "challenging" - the challenge of the full-health party and the challenge of the "shaken-off" health party.

So, how do you avoid this happening, or minimize this effect? (Do you at all?)

 

[Raven Crowking]

It seems I am not expressing myself clearly. Sorry for that.

A "challenging" fight is any fight in where there is a risk of dying.

That's the disconnect. I am specifically attempting to enable sandbox play, ala earlier editions, where part of the challenge is deciding what to fight. In this case, a challenging fight is any fight where you can lose significant resources.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's the disconnect. I am specifically attempting to enable sandbox play, ala earlier editions, where part of the challenge is deciding what to fight. In this case, a challenging fight is any fight where you can lose significant resources.


RC

I don't see why sandbox play would be more about significant resources - especially if we talk about hit points. Hit points are only short-term significant, as you can recover them by simply waiting. I would have expected sandboxes to be a lot more forgiving to delays then typical "plotted" adventures.

But I suppose if that's what you're after, knock yourself out. I am not really interested in this kind of play - for me, every single encounter should be meaningful/challenging in and on itself. I don't mind long-term consequences, but the fight has to work on its own, too. I am not the delayed gratification type when it comes to RPGs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see why sandbox play would be more about significant resources - especially if we talk about hit points. Hit points are only short-term significant, as you can recover them by simply waiting. I would have expected sandboxes to be a lot more forgiving to delays then typical "plotted" adventures.

Indeed, sandbox play requires reasons for reasonable delay in order to maintain any form of verisimilitude. Decoupling encounter hit points from total hit points is nice; decoupling encounter hit points from any meaning within the context of the world is damaging.

Or, if you look at the thread I forked from: Outside of sandbox play, the DM can easily impose arbitrary limits that mimic actual healing, even in 4e. Inigo's wounds can reopen, and the DM can simply handwave, declaring that the next adventure starts a week (or month, or year) later. If each adventure is "discrete", like episodes of a television series, or films in a franchise, this can make sense.

Within the context of a sandbox, though, players will wonder why, if there is no game reason not to, they can't simply press on. A sandbox requires the players' willingness to allow time to elapse, and the rules must support them in that willingness. That willingness must feed into the "win conditions" of the game.


RC

 

[Gansk]

Have you seen the Grace and Health hp rules from Book of Experimental Might? It seems to be a more elegant mechanic that achieves basically the same result as yours.

What else are you doing to flatten the power curve?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But I suppose if that's what you're after, knock yourself out. I am not really interested in this kind of play - for me, every single encounter should be meaningful/challenging in and on itself. I don't mind long-term consequences, but the fight has to work on its own, too. I am not the delayed gratification type when it comes to RPGs.

I remember when we were discussing "challenging fights" after the announcement of 4e. I kept insisting that "meaningful/challenging" would quickly come to mean "has a real chance to kill you" in the 4e paradigm. Others kept claiming otherwise. I guess those pigeons have to come to roost.

What is meaningful/challenging is based upon the "win conditions" of the game. If, in 4e (or any e), every fight had a real chance to give you a long-term -2 to hit, whether you won or not, then even a fight that couldn't kill you could be challenging. Assuming, of course, that the chance was based on something that the characters could influence.

Have you seen the Grace and Health hp rules from Book of Experimental Might? It seems to be a more elegant mechanic that achieves basically the same result as yours.

Is that OGC? If not, I can't use it.

My mechanic is based on the following ideas:

(1) It is desireable to partially decouple encounter hit points from total hit points.

(2) It is desireable to have a system that doesn't encounter Schrödinger's Wounding; at the time a hit is taken, it should be possible to determine what is "real" damage and what can be "shaken off".

(3) Characters shouldn't always find it possible/desireable to "shake it off". Under time constraints, for example, or in an area of hostile patrols, the PCs might well have to soldier on. The mechanic should show how this compounds the physical problems the PCs face. In this case, because they can only shake off so much damage, the more fights they get into before they rest, the more they deteriorate.

Ex. Level 2 fighter can shake off 10 hp damage. Let's be generous and give him 28 hp.

With rest:

Fight One: Takes 3 hp Total Damage: 0
Fight Two: Takes 8 hp Total Damage: 0
Fight Three: Takes 6 hp Total Damage: 0
Fight Four: Takes 12 hp Total Damage: 2

Without rest:

Fight One: Takes 3 hp Total Damage: 3
Fight Two: Takes 8 hp Total Damage: 11
Fight Three: Takes 6 hp Total Damage: 17
Fight Four: Takes 12 hp Total Damage: 39

Sporadic rest:

Fight One: Takes 3 hp Total Damage: 3
Fight Two: Takes 8 hp Total Damage: 11
Shakes it Off: Total Damage: 1
Fight Three: Takes 6 hp Total Damage: 7
Fight Four: Takes 12 hp Total Damage: 19
Shakes it Off: Total Damage: 9

What else are you doing to flatten the power curve?

As I get close to publication/distribution (for free, all or nearly all OGC, should be easy to convert other materials to), I'll post more on that!


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Within the context of a sandbox, though, players will wonder why, if there is no game reason not to, they can't simply press on. A sandbox requires the players' willingness to allow time to elapse, and the rules must support them in that willingness. That willingness must feed into the "win conditions" of the game.

Do they? I don't think so. Player actions can also be motivated simply by the social contract of the group. Similar to saying: "This is a heroic game. PCs are expected to aid other people, work together, and fight threats to the civilization." You can use alignments to imply that, or you can just say that this is the assumption you work.

But we're getting off-topic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Do they? I don't think so. Player actions can also be motivated simply by the social contract of the group. Similar to saying: "This is a heroic game. PCs are expected to aid other people, work together, and fight threats to the civilization." You can use alignments to imply that, or you can just say that this is the assumption you work.

But we're getting off-topic.

IME, players have an easy time with "PCs should be heroes" and a harder time with "I know the rules say you can cast Cure Light on that guy 'cause it'll interfere with his 'final words'." or "I know the rules say you can be bopping up tomorrow, and I know that you've heard the orc army is marching on the village where you live, but you really need to take a week's rest before doing anything about it."

Perhaps my experience is unusual in this regard. Admittedly, I've only run games in two countries, including several US states, for literally hundreds of different people. As a result, I want a system that works not only for an insular, close group where play assumptions are a given, but also for pick-up games and invites.


RC