Justifying high level 'guards', 'pirates', 'soldiers', 'assassins', etc.

[pemerton]

Yes, I think that this is the right approach for 4e - overall NPC threat level and in-setting prowess is constant, but precise stats are determined by the PCs' relative level. If the PCs are much tougher than the NPCs, make the NPCs minions. If they're much weaker, make the NPC a Solo. This is a big change from 3e, but it's still very different from making City Guards 3rd level Soldiers when the PCs are 3rd and 10th level Soldiers when the PCs are 10th.

I don't understand where the reward comes from, though? If I have x10 hp and do x10 damage but the same pirates now have x10 hp and do x10 damage, why should I feel rewarded? Where's the cookie?

A quibble: Snoweel and I were primarily suggesting a compression of the gap, not an elmination of it. So the ratios wouldn't be 1:1 as you're suggesting. But they would be less gonzo than 10:1.

But where's the reward? It depends what the player wants from the game.

If the player primarily wants to play the game to win, then s/he is doing that: her PC is more complex, using more interesting and intricate powers and combinations thereof, with more feats and magic items, and the foes are also tactically more interesting and complex (compare Heroic tier to Paragon tier monsters). So the player is getting a bigger challenge from the game. The fact that that challenge is still flavoured as a pirate or a town guard is, at the end of the day, not the main point.

If the player primarily wants to play the game to explore certain thematic issues, and to make thematic or aesthetic points through his/her choices in the course of play, then many of the same points still apply: the player has a more complex character to do these things with, and has had the chance to take the game in the direction that s/he wants. If that direction still involves pirates, well, that's up to the player.

If the player primarily wants to play the game so that his/her PC wins, in the gameworld, by becoming a more powerful person in the gameworld, then there isn't as much reward for such a player (although there is some, given that the ratios won't be 1:1). Hence my view that 4e is probably not the best game for players with simulationist preferences.

That the nature of play changes slowly as you progress in levels is a big attraction of D&D for me.

<snip>

I strongly disliked 3e's "20 levels of dungeon-bashing" approach, which 4e seems to follow.

I don't particularly enjoy wargaming, and don't look for that in an RPG.

Nor do I enjoy dungeon-bashing. The best 4e module I have seen so far is Heathen, in one of the online Dungeon magazines. I like 4e because it can do this sort of thing better than any other version of D&D.

 

[pemerton]

For me, roleplaying also means that PCs act as if living in a world, not being in a game. That means they do not make decisions based upon game or narrativist concepts, but upon the "world mechanics".

OotS is a very funny comic, but I'd rather not have my PCs start to reason and talk like those characters.

Who is talking about PCs metagaming? That is a category error. I am talking about players metagaming. That is pretty much a given, even if the metagame is limited to "Now that we've all picked up our character sheets and recapped on last week's session, no more metagaming!" Runequest plays well in this fashion. I don't think that D&D 4e plays all that well in this fashion, though undoubtedly it can be done (just as I'm sure that some people somewhere have metagamed Runequest).

Let's make another example: The PCs get drunk and start a brawl in an Inn. The town guards absolutely trash the PCs. They knock them around and out, and throw them into the jail for a day. It is no contest.

A day later, the mayor calls the heroes, and asks them to defend the town against a marauding ogre. The town guard can't handle the ogre, and will defend the twon while they go out and slay it.

Anyone in my group, and I suspect in other groups as well, would not accept this as anything other than an attempt by the mayor to kill the Pcs. If the guards can trash the PCs, then the PCs are not suited for tasks that could trash the guards.

There are a couple of possibilities here.

One is what Snoweel mentioned - that this is just bad adventure design because the world is inconsistent.

Another is that the game has some sort of "redemption through outrageous comeback" motif going, and the drunk and slovenly PCs who got trashed by the town guards redeem themselves by saving the town from the ogre despite the mayor wanting them dead (think Rocky or The Karate Kid).

Another is that the PCs, appearances notwithstanding (after all, the town guard just trashed them), have been prophecied to be ogre slayers. In 4e one way to mechanically model this prophecy is to make the ogres of a level that the PCs can beat them in a tough fight. (In TRoS it would be done using Spiritual Attributes. In HARP it would be done using Fate Points. In HeroWars it would be done using augments from a Destined to Slay Ogres ability. Diffferent game systems have different mechanical ways of handling such a situation.)

Narratist this or that, even a play or novel needs internal logic. If the PCs can slay a dragon, and then in turn are bested by a drow patrol, barring special circumstances such as ambushes or special "dragonslayer" feats, tools or powers, then the drow patrol should manage to slay that dragon as well.

Merry and Eowyn beat the Witchking, not through force of arms, but through force of prophecy. There's no reason to think that they could beat Glorfindel in combat, even though Glordindel couldn't beat the Witchking.

One way to model this sort of thing is to give them big bonuses to hit. Another (functionally equivalent) way is to stat up the foes at the right level to provide the right sort of challenge. Nothing need follow from that about how anyone else in the gameworld would handle the foes in question.

Now the prophecy examples still involve some sort of ingame explanation for the mechanics (ie the prophecy). But it is just as easy to imagine that there is no prophecy in the gameworld, but it is the desire an intention of the players of the game that events unfold according to a certain narrative logic. (This would be a slightly more modernist approach to the narrative.) Appropriate allocation of stats to the PC's foes will do this as well.

 

[pemerton]

I started off with the mindset of the majority (I reckon) but what Snoweel and Permeton have said have given me a lot to think of.

Thanks.

The encounter itself might be fun but the story isn't going to fit. They are going to question why the city guards in one city were weak (the ones they encountered 3 years ago at 3rd level and beat) whereas these ones are rock hard

as long as one bears in mind that when a story breaks the reader's suspension of disbelief, that's not generally good for the story. Traveling At The Speed Of Plot is a very handy technique and I use it regularly; but it is also dangerously seductive, because it can lead you to get increasingly careless about details until suddenly the PCs say, "Hey, wait a minute. It took us three days to get to the Darkhold last time and all we had to do was walk down a level road. How come now it's a five-week journey and there's a mountain range in the way?"

NPC power levels are similar. You can fudge them to some extent for the convenience of the game. But if you do it too much, and too extensively, it will break suspension of disbelief. At least in my experience, players expect a certain consistency in the world. Epic-level heroes expect that if they have trouble with it, it's an epic-level threat, with everything that entails in terms of its impact on the game world.

Both the above quotes assume that the players are making an assumption, namely, that difficulty of an encounter for their PCs equates to relative ingame prowess. That is, both are assuming that the players have simulationist expectations.

If players do not have simulationist expectations - that is, for example, if the players have embraced alternative metagame explanations for the +.5 per level that various creatures receive, such as those canvassed by me upthread - then the players won't draw the inference that difficulty of encounter corresponds to ingame prowess. And thus no damage will be done, and no consistency will arise in the gameworld.

To repeat: the frequent suggestion that narrativist play involves a sacrifice of ingame consistency for story verges on the derogatory. What narrativist play abandons is a consistent ingame interpretation of the mechanics. But that has nothing to do with the consistency of the gameworld. It is just a different, non-simulationist, set of metagame expectations.

All this is is yet another argument over how 4th edition doesn't prioritize simulationism

<snip>

Having an epic thread on this every two weeks isn't really going to change anyone's stake, though.

Agreed. For the past year or so, my participation in these threads has simply been aimed at (i) pointing out that coherent narrativist play is possible, (ii) pointing out that 4e supports it better than 3E, and that 4e supports simulationism less well than 3E, and (iii) that narrativist play does not mean abandoning consistency of the gameworld.

 

[IceFractal]

The problem with considering level as destiny or luck rather than increased prowess, is that the PCs get in a lot of fights, against a lot of different foes.

If you fought one dragon and defeated it, that could be for a lot of reasons. Maybe you were destined to slay it. Maybe you got lucky. Maybe the dragon was overconfident.

But if you've fought half a dozen dragons, scores of orcs, goblins, ogres, and drow, several demons, a giant thunder-breathing snake, some berserk wolves, a 500-year old vampire swordsman, a couple giants, and some kind of ooze made of lava ... the law of averages starts coming into it a bit. Either it isn't luck, or it's really consistent luck. And either way, it makes little sense for it to suddenly fail when you fight some random pirates/highwaymen/guards/whoever.

Additionally, many people like to play characters who are actually competent enough to survive the challenges they face - not just ridiculously lucky or saved by destiny.

 

[Fenes]

I have to point out that I do not consider a world where the PCs are the prophecised ogre slayers, then the prophecised Umber Hulk Slayers, then become the prophecised Ork Raider slayers, all while being knocked around by the town guard, as that convincing. Good concept for one campaign, but I'd rather not repeat it X times per level, Y times per campaign. (It also may feel a bit contrived, and "let good kind DM tie those ogres down for you with prophecy so you can slay them and feel like heroes, kids" themed)

I'd rather have the PCs being heroes instead, and reserve the prophecy for the really unique battles.

I also prefer if a story fits into a game world, instead of the other way around. Often, good stories used as a base for a game world lead to terrible game worlds - and games - because the elements that make a story good are too unique to work as a base for a more open campaign.

In my campaign, I don't need to use minions, and other narrativist tools. I can set the "thoughness" of an NPC at a value I consider fitting, and see where the PCs and players drive the story.

(Which, as an aside, also means that while my job as DM might beharder, it also leaves me surprised more often, and is more fun for me than trying to juggle prophesy and balanced encounters all day.)

 

[S'mon]

I don't fully see how it's a defence of an issue with 3E that there is a way of rewriting significant parts of the game (eg spell lists, magic items, monster stats) under which the problem goes away.

I don't see particular monster stats as a core part of the game. Certainly not a part that should be inviolate. That my hill giants have 8 hit dice, attack +8 and do 2d6+7 damage and are CR 4 instead of CR 7 isn'y rewriting the core. Nor am I saying that this in defense of 3e mind you - I think it's a major failing of 3e that the default 'melee brute' monsters' stats are way too tough compared to core Fighter PCs. If Skip Williams as author of the 3e Monster Manual was the man responsible, he screwed up badly I think.

 

[Fenes]

The problem with considering level as destiny or luck rather than increased prowess, is that the PCs get in a lot of fights, against a lot of different foes.

If you fought one dragon and defeated it, that could be for a lot of reasons. Maybe you were destined to slay it. Maybe you got lucky. Maybe the dragon was overconfident.

But if you've fought half a dozen dragons, scores of orcs, goblins, ogres, and drow, several demons, a giant thunder-breathing snake, some berserk wolves, a 500-year old vampire swordsman, a couple giants, and some kind of ooze made of lava ... the law of averages starts coming into it a bit. Either it isn't luck, or it's really consistent luck. And either way, it makes little sense for it to suddenly fail when you fight some random pirates/highwaymen/guards/whoever.

Unless of course it's your one weakness, being vulnerable to a few mortal men - but then, the whole party having the same weakness, and the next party having all the same weakness stretches this idea very thin - and isn't exactly a good story anymore.

 

[Fenes]

As far as 3E is concerned - I don't really see it as Pemerton does. I don't see this monolith 3E that somehow has all that stuff as core. 3E for me stands for d20, which means a lot of possible options, from which I pick and choose what I use for my game. Core 3E for me is that flexibility, not the text in one book.

I do not rewrite it as much as I write my ideal game from the elements it provides to me.

Not everyone's cup of tea, but it works for me.

 

[S'mon]

If the player primarily wants to play the game so that his/her PC wins, in the gameworld, by becoming a more powerful person in the gameworld, then there isn't as much reward for such a player (although there is some, given that the ratios won't be 1:1). Hence my view that 4e is probably not the best game for players with simulationist preferences.

"Playing to win" is "simulationist"?

I think what you said about increased complexity as a reward is interesting. Personally I don't get any satisfaction from my PC's stats growing more complex - that makes them harder to run, which takes more brain-power, which for me quickly becomes a disincentive not an incentive. Deciding how much to Power Attack in 3e is about as much mechanical complexity as I want to deal with. Actually I think this is a big reason why I have struggled to 'get into' 4e. If it's predicated on the notion that increasing PC mechanical complexity is good, and I think it's bad, then me and the game clearly have a major disagreement.

 

[Irda Ranger]

As I said upthread, by compressing the gaps in the gameworld, relative to the gaps in the numbers on the statblocks for PCs and monsters, you make the game less gonzo.

Yeah, I get that. I know what you're trying to accomplish.

That is: the notion is one of having non-gonzo play without grim & gritty. Runequest can't deliver that. E6 can't. 4e can.

There isn't an ounce of difference between what you're doing and E6 except number inflation. You're just giving both sides illusory +'s to their d20 role. Why bother with the sleigh of hand?

To repeat: the frequent suggestion that narrativist play involves a sacrifice of ingame consistency for story verges on the derogatory.

No, "sacrifice of ingame consistency to further story development" is the plain meaning of the word. Whether or no you think that's derogatory isn't my concern.

Just for the record, I think narrativist play is "not my cup o' tea", but that's a different thing than "I think people who play that way are my inferiors."

What narrativist play abandons is a consistent ingame interpretation of the mechanics.

So does everyone else is 4E. Consistent ingame explanations for HP and dmg are flat out against the rules. The distinguishing characteristic is that simulationists recognize rules like "city guards are between 1st and 4th level" and narrativists don't. For a narrativist a city guard is whatever level he needs to be to advance the plot (within reason).


*********

However, we have gotten very far afield. My main point of argument is that if you give a player a +1 to attack, it should mean something. In all previous editions of D&D it meant (1) old foes were more easily bested and (2) new more powerful foes can be challenged. However by simply scaling old foes up with player advancement (even if at "a reduced scale") you are taking away reward number one. To quote S'mon, "Where's the cookie?"

If you feel the urge (as a DM) to give players a +1 attack, and then immediately give all their foes a +1 to all defenses to compensate, you should probably just not give out the +1 attack in the first place. It's fools' gold. Frankly I would find it a bit insulting.

If you want to play a campaign where city guards and pirates are threats at 16th level that's perfectly fine, but it's an illusory reward to give +'s with one hand that you're simply going to take them back with the other. Just be up front with the players about what kind of campaign you want to run.

Otherwise you might as well play a version of D&D that grants +11 per level because that's better than +1/2 per level.