No candy for fun; and bring back the absolute

[Siberys]

We did cut-and-run, but this dragon was part of a minor sidequest - we likely won't return, and not 'cause we think we can't take it. :/

That's all beside my point, though. What I'm getting at is that increasing numbers in RPGs is all smoke and mirrors, regardless of system. As your level goes up, you gain bonuses, the threats you face get tougher, and their numbers increase too. It's a wash in the end and just increases the size of the math you'd be doing.

 

[Dausuul]

Every power and effect should be fun... but not necessarily fun for the players.

 

[foolish_mortals]

something that makes everyone groan at the table would be kinda cool.

foolish_mortals

 

[malkav666]

something that makes everyone groan at the table would be kinda cool.

foolish_mortals

Why may I ask would you think that would be cool? I am not trying to be mean at all, but honestly asking what is cool about that? Because for me when I have groaning and grumbling players at the table I tend to think something is going wrong, or that they are not having fun.

love,

malkav

 

[Wormwood]

something that makes everyone groan at the table would be kinda cool.

Really?

 

[Walking Dad]

Here are two things that I would hope for in the new edition:

1) asking oneself whether each power and effect is fun does not make a game better IMO. Only positive things is like too much candy: it's not good for your health. Bring back stuff that hurst the PCs and makes the victory meaningful. Dose it, perhaps; but bring it back. It's ok to be paralized (if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours).

Being paralyzed / missing the whole game evening after one low role and no chance for a recovery check is not a good thing. You can basically drive home if this happens and come back next week.

2) I hope they avoid the "relative" value of all things that they introduced in 4E, where all numbers scale so in the end, you end up needing exactly the same number on your d20 to succeed at anything notwithstanding the level you're at.

I thing many people just don't get the purpose of scaling DCs.

It isn't about going back to the first level dungeon at 10th level and not be able to pick the door.
It is about providing a level appropriate challenge without the DM checking every book to determine the kind of metal just hard enough to break for the groups current level.

It helps to give locations a "level" which determines the DC.

 

[Siberys]

Re: Relative values; The problem is, even if you understand that, Walking Dad, the end result is just number inflation. A DM is more likely to use things of an appropriate level than they are things severely off-of-level, so the end result is DC 15+modifiers vs. a skill check of +5+modifiers. I'd rather ditch scaling not because of verisimilitude issues (of which I have none), but because of that inflation. Rather, I think there should be a good discussion on how to represent challenges based on the PC's level - to use 4e terms (and to not think the numbers very closely), a level 1 solo should be representable as a level 10 elite, a level 20 standard, or a level 30 minion. In short, scaling should all be on the DM side, and not have much to do with numbers.

 

[billd91]

See, though, scaling values is not something invented for 4e. It's in 3e definitely; it's just obscured because of the mess of numbers you had to deal with. I played a PF session recently where we couldn't hit a dragon only a few levels above us precisely because of this - and let me tell you, it was not enjoyable.

It's really only sort of there. There are quite a few situations in which the defense of the target really doesn't keep up with the attacks the PCs can mete out. In other words, while some upper level stuff really is hard to land a blow on (particularly dragons as long as you don't have ways to get them with touch attacks), there are plenty of cases in which level-appropriate challenges are reasonably easy to hit, particularly if you're building up their defenses by selecting defensive gear. I find this a good thing.

 

[Skyscraper]

See, though, scaling values is not something invented for 4e. It's in 3e definitely; it's just obscured because of the mess of numbers you had to deal with. I played a PF session recently where we couldn't hit a dragon only a few levels above us precisely because of this - and let me tell you, it was not enjoyable.

I can get behind the "static defenses/attack, scaling health/damage", though - mathematically, levelling is just a treadmill as it stands. It would be better to keep numbers low, simply because the math is simpler that way.

Sure, scaling values are found in pretty much every RPG. However, in 4E, too many things scale. Whereas in many other RPGs, you have some things that remain static, and others that scale, and suddenly those things that scale have value.

Take a sill system where the PC skill modifiers scale (as in 4E). You then have 2 possible scenarios with DCs:

1) DCs also scale, as in 4E, where a "hard" skill check requires the same d20 roll by the PC notwithstanding his level.
2) DCs are absolute, so you have for example a table with set DC values.

In AD&D, you had armor class values that didn't scale with PC levels. Likewise in 3E IIRC, although your magic and ability score increase did bump it up. (Man, I haven't touched 3E for a while!)

What I'm saying is that I find that too many things scale in 4E. I'm not saying that nothing should scale. For example, scaling health/damage and static defenses/attack value is one thing to explore.

 

[Skyscraper]

Being paralyzed / missing the whole game evening after one low role and no chance for a recovery check is not a good thing. You can basically drive home if this happens and come back next week.

That's why I wrote "if the battle doesn't last for 3 hours" at the end. We had paralysis in 1E, it didn't suck because battles didn't last long and PCs had ways to remove it. One thing's for sure: spellcaster were feared because magic had the value of being powerful, meaningful.

I thing many people just don't get the purpose of scaling DCs.

It isn't about going back to the first level dungeon at 10th level and not be able to pick the door.
It is about providing a level appropriate challenge without the DM checking every book to determine the kind of metal just hard enough to break for the groups current level.

It helps to give locations a "level" which determines the DC.

Right. Am I one of those people that don't understand, out of curiosity?

I think I understand the level-appropriate DC part. However, as I noted in other posts in this thread, if the DC to break a door goes up by 1/2 PC level and the PC's skill mod also goes up by 1/2 PC level, what is the purpose of the increase? I say, increase the skill mods if you wish, but set the DCs in stone so that the PCs have the impression that their PCs can do more at level 20 than they could at level 1, including breaking down a reinforced door that was unattainable at level 1.