More "realistic" advancement in D&D?

[mmadsen]

@mmadsen
I started typing a reply to your last reply to me, but then I saw post 42 and I can say we are pretty much on the same page re: how ac and hit points work and are "supposed" to work.

For a roleplaying game, where we want to keep the PCs alive, hit points have the not-necessarily-obvious advantage of keeping combat predictable and safe, but they're not at all realistic -- and they don't offer as much plot-protection as they should either.

They really should be "holy smokes!" points, divorced from toughness and available only to PCs and dramatically important NPCs. How might we do this? First and foremost, we should make these "holy smokes!" points available to modify any defensive roll, after the fact. Miss a save? Spend some points to make it. Take a hit from a hill giant? Spend some points to avoid getting hit entirely. Take a hit from a giant scorpion's venomous tail? Again, spend some points to avoid getting hit entirely -- and never have to make a save against poison. And so on.

There are other tweaks necessary, of course, but this goes all the way, where 4E went half-way.

 

[Gentlegamer]

For a roleplaying game, where we want to keep the PCs alive, hit points have the not-necessarily-obvious advantage of keeping combat predictable and safe, but they're not at all realistic -- and they don't offer as much plot-protection as they should either.

On "plot protection" . . . this is where we start to disagree on our views, I think.

 

[mmadsen]

On "plot protection"... this is where we start to disagree on our views, I think.

My pet theory is that the great strength of many D&D mechanics is that they obfuscate the plot-protection PCs receive. No one wants PCs to die from one bad roll, but most people don't want the PCs to get unfair help either -- so we have random hit dice, which seem much less random for PCs, random ability scores, which are now explicitly exceptional for PCs, escalating hit points and healing magic, which reduce "swingy-ness", etc.

 

[Gentlegamer]

No one wants PCs to die from one bad roll,

In my view, players may put their characters in bad positions with poor decisions. The die roll (saving throw or combat roll) is actually an additional protection [that they may not deserve].

This ties into what RC has referred to as the lure to tempt players into making "unbalanced" decisions. "Superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating these "unbalanced" circumstances.

 

[Snoweel]

In my view, players may put their characters in bad positions with poor decisions. The die roll (saving throw or combat roll) is actually an additional protection [that they may not deserve].

This ties into what RC has referred to as the lure to tempt players into making "unbalanced" decisions. "Superior play" is recognizing and avoiding/mitigating these "unbalanced" circumstances.

Of course that assumes the paradigm that discretion is the better part of valour.

But for a power fantasy like D&D that is intended as interactive dramatic entertainment, there is an assumption that PCs are 'heroes' who act 'heroically' and generally get away with it.

We all know that IRL heroes die, but increasingly in Western entertainment they do not. We also know that IRL heroes often strive and fail, sacrificing themselves for nothing. Western entertainment has been steadily shifting more and more toward the hero striving and winning (which I've read described as a shift from the 'British' model of heroism to the 'American' model.)

 

[Gentlegamer]

Of course that assumes the paradigm that discretion is the better part of valour.

I'll let Gary answer this one:

Rashness and foolhardiness are harbingers of death, as is timidity, in such adventure setting.

But for a power fantasy like D&D that is intended as interactive dramatic entertainment, there is an assumption that PCs are 'heroes' who act 'heroically' and generally get away with it.

That may be what "modern" sensibilities have come to, but certainly isn't what was present in the origin of the game. Gary often recounted how when he ran Castle Greyhawk at conventions in later days, entire parties would be wiped out in the first level because the players would not retreat, assuming the encounter were "balanced" for them to win through by conventional methods.

We all know that IRL heroes die, but increasingly in Western entertainment they do not. We also know that IRL heroes often strive and fail, sacrificing themselves for nothing. Western entertainment has been steadily shifting more and more toward the hero striving and winning (which I've read described as a shift from the 'British' model of heroism to the 'American' model.)

This starts falling under "storytelling/narrative" style gaming, in my opinion. D&D has never been designed with that overall goal in mind.

 

[Snoweel]

This starts falling under "storytelling/narrative" style gaming, in my opinion. D&D has never been designed with that overall goal in mind.

I think "never" is a fallacy given the current (and some would say previous) editions of the game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I think "never" is a fallacy given the current (and some would say previous) editions of the game.

Which presents the question of whether the "present edition" is really a sequential edition of D&D or a different game . . .

 

[Snoweel]

Which presents the question of whether the "present edition" is really a sequential edition of D&D or a different game . . .

I think each edition has been an evolution of previous editions in response to the market/community.

I've been playing D&D since 1985 and it's always felt tlike D&D to me. I didn't like 2e as much as BECMI but I felt 3e was the best edition at that point as is 4e right now.

I have high hopes for 5e when it eventually swings around and maybe it'll cater to everybody (though I doubt it, individualism in Western society increasing with time, coincidentally with each new edition of D&D).

 

[Lanefan]

Ok, here is a differentiated reward system on the same model (first level one session, second level two sessions, etc). Since xp required in 3E is linear, with each level requiring 1000 new xp times your character level, the easy way to make it progressively slower is to divide all rewards by character level.

* Use the 3.5 xp tables

* Assign xp exactly as normal, but multiply it by four, then divide the reward by character level.

Or

* Assign each session a reward of 1000 xp. Divide this reward between the challenges encountered in this session, giving 100% to the guy who fought all of them, 50% to he who confronts half of them, and so on.

Why not just break it down challenge by challenge, as follows:

Challenges this session (of whatever type) were W, X, Y, and Z
Party members are A,B,C,D,E, and F (note: character E is a notorious coward who always tries to be elsewhere when danger is near)

Challenge W is worth 400 ExP total, characters A,C,D,F took part, so 100 ExP each.
Challenge X is worth 250 ExP total, char's A,B,C,D,F took part, so 50 each.
Challenge Y is worth 480 ExP total, only char's B,C and F got in, so 160 each.
Challenge Z is worth 1500 ExP total, everyone got in, so 250 each.

So, the totals by character for this session are:

A = 400
B = 460
C = 560
D = 400
E = 250
F = 560

C and F took the greatest risks (got involved in all the challenges, intentionally or otherwise) and got the greatest reward. Character E gets the least; the only challenge he helped out in was one he could not avoid.

All this requires is some note-taking during the session as to who gets involved with what. I use a simple chart with the characters' names down one side and the encounters along the top written in as they happen; I put little ticks as to who got in on each encounter, and work out the actual ExP amounts later. (actual system is vaguely 1e, but this works for any edition)

In an all-in system here each character would have received a flat 2630/6, or about 438 each - I maintain this is grossly unfair to characters C and F and at the same time is giving character E rewards it does not deserve.

I don't know why, but I had figured you for an old-school DM, and what you condemn here is pretty much the old-school approach; players are presented with a problem, and any approach that solves the problem merits a reward. Seems I was wrong. My players are pretty much the opposite of yours - they compete to be the most heroic, hence different experiences and rules.

I am an old-school DM. That said, you're quite right: any approach that solves the problem merits a reward...but only for those who helped solve it, by whatever means. A character who sleeps through an encounter, or who is off doing something else, doesn't help solve anything and should therefore not get ExP for it.

Lanefan