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

[S'mon]

Character death in epic circumstances is fine. Save or Die effects aren't generally limited to epic opponents, though. Especially in AD&D, you could be pushed into save or die pretty much anytime the DM wanted, from anything from a truly epic adversary, to your breakfast.

In 1e-2e though, higher level PCs hardly ever failed save or die effects. Even at moderate level, bonuses from a save-boosting item made saves pretty trivial. It was only with 3e that save-or-die became threatening to PCs above low level, IME. It's something I dislike about C&C actually, it has saves which scale with level, making PCs subject to random death any time.

Really high level 1e-2e PCs not only saved on a '2', they often had other items like rings of spell turning, amulets of life protection, and stuff granting Magic Resistance, to give further protection. They tended to become very robust.

Edit: I dislike Ear Seekers & random magic death traps though, so although there was plenty of PC death IMCs it wasn't quite as random as that. I started my main AD&D campaign at 3rd level and AIR there were 28 PC deaths in the first adventure, Irillian from White Dwarf. But by the time the PCs were ca 7th level they were only dying to ridiculous stuff like jumping into the middle of the enemy army solo.

 

[Jhaelen]

In my experience it would be more like this:

Dave: Fireball, 28 damage.
DM: *rolls saves, jots down some numbers* Okay, Leonard.

!?wtf?!
What edition of the game is this supposed to represent? 3e?
Actually, no matter which edition, wouldn't you need to at least indicate where the fireball is supposed to be targeted at?

And even if you managed to achieve this degree of efficiency, I have to admit I probably wouldn't be interested in playing this way. I'd much rather have my combats take longer and involve a bit more interaction. YMMV, rather obviously.

 

[Jhaelen]

I know a lot of other people have similar experiences to mine.

I know a few people like that, too. I also know quite a few more with experiences similar to ferratus'.

Of course this is mainly a result of self-selection: If you prefer a certain style of playing you tend to associate (and play) with people who share your preferences. Hence, I'm generally completely unimpressed whenever someone mentions "I never experienced this in x years of roleplaying", no matter the topic (the 15-minute adventuring day comes to mind...).
Just because you've never experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen _somewhere_ - and that goes for both sides in this 'conversation'.

Anyway, considering the current degree of derailment in this thread:
[MENTION=55966]ferratus[/MENTION]: Did you plan on posting anything else about your comparison of editions?

I found it quite interesting so far. Though it doesn't represent our game sessions these days 'exactly', it's close enough that I find your observations useful.

 

[BryonD]

I know a few people like that, too. I also know quite a few more with experiences similar to ferratus'.

Of course this is mainly a result of self-selection: If you prefer a certain style of playing you tend to associate (and play) with people who share your preferences. Hence, I'm generally completely unimpressed whenever someone mentions "I never experienced this in x years of roleplaying", no matter the topic (the 15-minute adventuring day comes to mind...).
Just because you've never experienced it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen _somewhere_ - and that goes for both sides in this 'conversation'.

My whole point was that there ARE different experiences. And I very specifically agreed that his experiences exists.

Ferratus was basically saying "all experiences are like mine". I replied that he needs to realize that there are (at least) two different kinds of experiences.

Your rebuttal to me is "no, there are at least two different kinds of experiences".

Your being "unimpressed" has no relevance because you are not responding to anything I actually said.

 

[Jhaelen]

Your being "unimpressed" has no relevance because you are not responding to anything I actually said.

Well, on a very basic level I agreed with you. If people agreeing with you has no relevance, then yes, it wasn't relevant (for you).

Otherwise your post was largely irrelevant to the point _I_ was trying to make. It was addressed at

both sides in this 'conversation'.

to quote myself.

I'm sorry for quoting part of your post to introduce my point. It won't happen again (at least for as long as I can remember ).

 

[Raven Crowking]

[mention=55966]ferratus[/mention]: Did you plan on posting anything else about your comparison of editions?

I found it quite interesting so far.

+1.

 

[BryonD]

Well, on a very basic level I agreed with you. If people agreeing with you has no relevance, then yes, it wasn't relevant (for you).

Otherwise your post was largely irrelevant to the point _I_ was trying to make. It was addressed at to quote myself.

I'm sorry for quoting part of your post to introduce my point. It won't happen again (at least for as long as I can remember ).

I go back and read your post and you were clearly directly responding to me. That isn't to say that the context of the overall thread was not clear and I took it that way at the time. But you made a point of being critical of me for suggesting that something that I very specifically did not suggest.

And it was not your agreement or lack thereof that was not relevant, it was your being unimpressed with a fictional position.

And trying to put an exclamation point of "both sides" doesn't help when the whole point is that both sides are NOT doing it. (As you seemed to start off admitting with the "I agreed" line.)

Ferratus very specifically listed things that we must like, not leaving room for the idea that there may be a completely different experience. He very much did what you are complaining about. But, as you admit, your views are "self selected" into being consistent with his, so you aimed your comments in the direction you would prefer they went, rather than accurately.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hence, I'm generally completely unimpressed whenever someone mentions "I never experienced this in x years of roleplaying", no matter the topic (the 15-minute adventuring day comes to mind...).

Since I'm usually the one to say that in a particular thread, I'll take this.

I'm under no illusions about the 15MWD. I've seen too many threads that complain about it to think people are making it up.

However, complaints about it usually incorporate the idea that the 15MWD is hard-wired into the mechanics of the game itself, and the solutions offered are all thus all about changing game mechanics.

Thus, when I say they I have never seen the 15 MWD in 34 years of gaming, in @100 RPG systems, in 5 different cities (big & small) in 3 states, it is not meant to impress you or anyone else, but to indicate that the problem in question is probably NOT structural, but an artifact of playstyle.

Then, if appropriate to the thread, I offer non-structural, playstyle-based remedies for the 15MWD.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

!?wtf?!
What edition of the game is this supposed to represent? 3e?
Actually, no matter which edition, wouldn't you need to at least indicate where the fireball is supposed to be targeted at?

And even if you managed to achieve this degree of efficiency, I have to admit I probably wouldn't be interested in playing this way. I'd much rather have my combats take longer and involve a bit more interaction. YMMV, rather obviously.

Pretty much any edition that has fireball. Sure, you need to indicate where you'll cast it, that generally adds one extra word. "I cast fireball - here." and point to a location if you're using a map or grid, or otherwise indicate the target area. It really depends on the room dimensions. A large room with enemies 50 feet away? The dm thinks I'm fireballing my feet?

 

[Jhaelen]

A large room with enemies 50 feet away? The dm thinks I'm fireballing my feet?

The things is: Fireball needs a clear path, so you need to check if it's actually possible for it to reach the designated target space. Otherwise it might hit an obstacle on its way and explode somewhere else (e.g. in the back of your fighter buddy right in front of you, who is trying to protect you ).

AFAIK, that's been a property of fireballs in every edition. It's also part of the reason why a commonly used advanced player tactic is to throw the fireball at an angle (the other being a reduction in the affected area at the ground level).

In 1e (and probably in 2e) fireballs would also extend beyond their usual area of effect until they filled a certain volume, potentially causing you to incinerate half of the dungeon likely including your feet.

In 3e (and I think in 4e) you also have to check if any target has cover against it. Though that's probably the DMs job, if a pc is casting the fireball.

Now, of course, if you aren't fond of using minis you may decide to ignore all that stuff and have the fireball auto-hit all of the enemies and none of your allies but imho, that's pretty far into homebrew territory.