Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[howandwhy99]

I don't see role-playing and combat as opposites.

I agree. In D&D, combat is most of the roleplaying done IMO. If PCs start dying left and right however, it probably means the module's game design is too difficult for the players. Or the players are just roleplaying poorly, but I would tend to err on the side of the module being too difficult for the players.

Those GenCon open game listings require commensurate experience: beginner, intermediate, experts-only(!), and aren't to be laughed at. It takes real ability to roleplay well.

 

[Doug McCrae]

an alchemical weapon that does 1d6 damage?

I don't believe Gary intended it to be an alchemical weapon, rather he mistakenly allowed medieval lantern oil to burn like petrol. His model was probably the molotov cocktail, an anachronism. There is only one entry for oil in the 1e PHB, not two separate entries for alchemist's fire and normal oil, as there are in 3e. In 1e it does 2-12 points of damage on the first round and 1-6 on the second.

I say it's an exploit because no one would assume, without having read the DMG, that medieval lantern oil would be as effective a weapon as it is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nothing much to add at this point. I just wanted to say that this is enjoyable reading, and a good topic. Hussar, XP are coming your way!

RC

 

[Ariosto]

Lethality is lessened in low-level 4E the same way as for high-level characters in old D&D: by the ratio of hit points to damage. In old D&D, a typical hit does one die of damage and a character has (up to "name" level) as many dice of hit points as its level. 1d6 damage vs. 1d6 HP is 58.333% chance of a kill. In 4E, even 3d6+4 (e.g., a rogue "sneak attack") is 0% versus 23 HP.

An ancient red dragon's "immolate foe" power does only an average of 32 initially, +15 ongoing (save ends). (The dragon has 1,390 HP!) A fresh 1st-level fighter with 17 constitution (32 HP, 16 bloodied) survives the average immolation if (55% chance) the ongoing damage applies but once, and someone applies first aid or healing magic (or the encounter ends, allowing a "rest") before failure of 3 death saving throws.

In 1st ed. AD&D, the dragon does a minimum of 36 points and even an Unearthed Arcana barbarian has a maximum of 40 -- versus 24 for a ranger, or 14 for a fighter or paladin.

It's a bit harder to get killed in one hit in low-level 4E, unless it's "friendly fire" (PCs can pack a wallop!). Not knowing when to retreat can easily lead to a TPK, but that's a different matter. I think it might actually get more dangerous in the paragon and/or epic tier, but I'm not sure.

 

[Ariosto]

Touching again on the TPK potential in 4E, in my (perhaps unrepresentative) experience, players in a combat are like a cat up a tree. Heck, the possibility that an encounter with monsters could be anything but a slugging match seems not to cross their minds.

I guess that could reflect "training" in 3E scenarios, although what I've seen from Necromancer Games would seem unlikely to cultivate such rigidity. Goodman maybe; I don't recall anything from Wizards.

RPGA 4E events seem to encourage an "along for the ride" attitude, and the Association has been key to drawing into the game most of the players I have met.

A lot of 1E modules came (partly to get more return on development costs) from tournaments, and that may have helped pave the way for a wide shift to pretty linear scenarios. The early ones, though, tended also to be very deadly unless approached with the caution likewise applicable in a "proper" dungeon (roughly analogous to a modern war zone).

More than anything, I think assumptions as to what the game is "about" shape how players approach it. A trend in published scenarios, if they get used a lot, may weigh more heavily than material in the rule book. For instance, GDW and FASA published (if memory serves) a number of Traveller adventures focused on criminal or mercenary undertakings involving violence almost as a matter of course. I recall that some players who had a collection of those (which I did not) got the impression that Traveller was "about" that sort of thing.

 

[Ariosto]

On 1E flaming oil: I regard (as is my prerogative as DM) the "direct hit" damage as most unlikely to arise from use of "medieval Molotov" grenades. It takes a hard target to break a bottle; short of that, only pouring (or a very lucky toss at a hard ceiling) is going to drench enough.

Taking that out of the equation, flaming oil is largely reduced to a stratagem for discouraging pursuit -- as I think it ought to be.

(For Korgoth and others who might not know) DMG p. 64 has a "direct hit" do 2-12 points the first round, and another 1-6 the second. A splash burns for 1-3 segments, doing 1 point per segment. Leaping over a puddle of burning oil generally does no damage, but walking through or standing in such flames does 1-6 per round.

Vegetable or animal oils seem generally less volatile than kerosene, so I think the "explosion" effect of modern improvised weapons (on which I am no expert!) is probably not going to happen. Having experienced scalding from merely hot cooking oil, though, I can accept that getting soaked in archaic lamp oil and then set on fire could be as nasty as the DMG makes it -- at least considering how deadly so much else is in the game!

 

[Mallus]

Heck, the possibility that an encounter with monsters could be anything but a slugging match seems not to cross their minds.

That depends on the group, doesn't it? (regardless of edition). See my earlier point about original D&D giving rise to both the cautious, logistics-heavy play style and hack-and-slash gaming.

 

[The Shaman]

The one time we played T20 Traveller, we didn't have any combats, and instead where just flying from planet to planet to buy and sell goods at good profit.

But I don't think we role-played more than in a combat heavy session of D&D.

Okay, but my point was specific to the experience of combat lethality in Traveller and its potential effects on roleplaying, not playing Traveller generally.

That said, I've played Traveller games where we jumped from system to system trading our wares, focused on system codes and trade tables with a bare minimum of roleplaying, and I've played Traveller games where we built complex webs of commerical contacts through schmoozing, bribery, and skullduggery that involved more roleplay and almost no trade table consulting at all.

Sometimes they were the same game, actually.

 

[billd91]

That depends on the group, doesn't it? (regardless of edition). See my earlier point about original D&D giving rise to both the cautious, logistics-heavy play style and hack-and-slash gaming.

Maybe... but the comment that D&D is fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff comes up dishearteningly often in posts... and from 4e designers for that matter. I can't shake the feeling that sentiment is at the core of the game philosophy that shaped 4e and its ENWorld fan-base (I can't speak very much to other fan collectives outside of ENWorld since I don't frequent many other game boards). And it may be part of the reason 4e and I don't get along so much...

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Maybe... but the comment that D&D is fundamentally about killing things and taking their stuff comes up dishearteningly often in posts... and from 4e designers for that matter. I can't shake the feeling that sentiment is at the core of the game philosophy that shaped 4e and its ENWorld fan-base (I can't speak very much to other fan collectives outside of ENWorld since I don't frequent many other game boards). And it may be part of the reason 4e and I don't get along so much...

Don't forget get xp!

D&D is about killing people and taking their stuff(and getting xp). You're basically playing it against the grain if you're not.

People tend to say that phrase and mean that it is all D&D is about, or that there is something wrong with killing people and taking their stuff(and getting xp). There isn't.

I play D&D to kill people and take their stuff. And I get xp for it.