Playing 2e, 3e, and 4e at the same time: Observations

[ferratus]

[MENTION=34194]byron[/MENTION] - A knife to the head instantly kills you do. Why isn't a knife to the head a save or die attack, like poison or a disintegrate spell? Why doesn't poison or disintegrate do damage instead?

What reasoning makes it "more realistic" to have a save or die from magic, poison or other effects that wouldn't equally apply to a melee or missile weapon attack?

Why not have all attacks be save or die, if you want to have a "realistic" narrative?

 

[ferratus]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - Yes, but my point is that Tomb Horrors isn't good for a narrative game. It is good for a dungeon crawl where you kill multiple fast-generated characters, not for telling a story about that character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even a slasher flick can tell a good story if it is well done, and the story doesn't even have to be about the survivor.

Whether someone can tell a good story about their PC in ToH is entirely up to the PC...well, that and the luck of the dice letting him stay alive long enough to tell the story!

 

[ferratus]

DannyAlcatraz> Yes... but are you going to take a 10th level character that you've adventured with for 2 years who is in the middle of a world shaking plot, and toss him into the Tomb of Horrors? Of course not, unless you don't give a damn about whether you want to continue with that character or not. If you want him to have a reasonable chance of survival to finish his quests, the only choice is to not enter the Tomb of Horrors at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

ferratus, I will take my PCs into any adventure my DMs are running, and I care very deeply about my PCs.

Rising to challenge the world every day is the job description for "Adventurer." Death doesn't necessarily mean the sad end to the PC's tale- especially in a mid- to high-level game with access to certain magics- sometimes its the beginning of legends. To this day, I recall my fighter, Bear, who took on the City Watch on the bridge out of town so his buddies could live. He didn't survive the encounter.

That PC's death drove the campaign in a completely new direction. There was even an orphanage in the city renamed in his honor when all the reasons for his actions were revealed.

Or, to quote the soundtrack to the movie Highlander- "Who wants to live forever?"

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - With published adventures (where I didn't have to throw away my own prep work), with no ongoing plot, and players who don't mind throwing away months of work developing a character on the single roll of die...

Well, I guess I could run OD&D as written.

But my players generally want to achieve things, and I want to achieve things, and we're just not nihilistic enough to throw away a year long project like that.

I don't think 'nihilistic' is right. For me, I don't like having a PC die, but there doesn't seem any point in playing through D&D combats if the PCs cannot lose. It's the risk of defeat/death that makes the game meaningful as a game. It would be different if I was playing a different, less combat-centric RPG. In a game which centred around exploring aspects of my PC's character, or around drama and interpersonal relationships, then it would make sense that PCs didn't die without player consent, or very rarely. But all editions of D&D seem to me primarily about overcoming challenges to acquire power, making the threat of death an important part of the game. D&D rules can be tweaked to different purposes, eg Dragonlance, but without modification are not very well suited to other approaches. The one time I did resent losing a PC to random death we were playing the 3e Midnight setting as a very drama/character-heavy game, and loss of the PC did destroy my feeling of investment in the game, as you say. The GM should have used a Fate Point system or similar, as she realised too late. But that was an exceptional case.

 

[S'mon]

recent experience with bad retro-clones...

Bad retro-clones?! Surely you jest! All retro-clones are things of wonder and beauty!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, I don't like having a PC die, but there doesn't seem any point in playing through D&D combats if the PCs cannot lose. It's the risk of defeat/death that makes the game meaningful as a game.

There are 2 major problems with your statement:
1: I did not say it first
2: see 1

 

[S'mon]

So my original point should stand that all things being equal, 4e and 3e take the same amount of time.

Personally I think you're right that 4e and 3e do take about the same amount of time. 4e rounds go by faster, but it takes more rounds to resolve a battle. Sometimes this leads to 4e 'grind' where it feels longer as everyone spams at-wills. 3e rounds tend to take much longer to resolve, but magic especially is so powerful that battles tend to be over in a small number of rounds. 3 rounds for 3e vs 5 rounds for 4e seems typical, but around an hour for a battle in both games. Very Low level 3e (ca 1st-2nd level) is faster than 4e because everyone is so fragile, Very High level 3e (ca 16th+) is slower than 4e because everything is so complicated, but there is not a big disparity overall.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

And there aren't crits in old school D&D (pre-3e)..

To add to Lanefan's reply, there are optional rules for critical hits in AD&D 2E's Dungeon Master Guide, Combat & Tactics and Spells & Magic.