D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Hussar]

So all those times you've said "but I've been told, lots of times by lots of people, that you can't do this!" is actually you... what? Not getting that it's pointless and counterproductive trying to pigeonhole gamers and games into just a few types?

Because if you got that, then why on earth would you say "You do X? But Bob said you can't do X!"

Again, the meaning has been explained to you. Other people have understood my meaning and they've explained it to you... At this point, I don't think I can explain it to you any better.

 

[Faolyn]

"Not that type of game" in that PCs don't do (or are prevented from doing) any pre-scouting or info-gathering before wading in to a situation?

"Not that type of game" in that the players and GM are building the story together and are aware that being cinematic may take precedence over counting out the exact numbers.

One would hope, yes.

IME if they want that sort of info it's almost inevitable that they'll pick off and capture a straggler, then question it via persuasion or charm or bribe or pain or (if available) Speak With Dead. Higher-level groups would also throw Detect Lie if they have it. In a pirate setting they might follow one up to the tavern and make the capture when said pirate leaves said tavern in a less-coherent state.

Of course, that assumes that the PCs have those abilities, which is not a guarantee. Or that a living pirate will tell the truth (neither bribes nor torture are actually all that good at getting the truth out of people), and speak with dead specifically points out how cryptic and easily misunderstood the replies will be.

And once it's established in the fiction via that questioning that the ship's crew number about 45 plus 8 others (captain, cook, bo'sun, etc.) it would be unfair of the DM to change that without a good, and potentially PC-learnable, in-fiction explanation. For example, the PCs might approach the ship and see 100 pirates on deck as they are entertaining an allied crew for the night; or they might approach and find nobody other than a skeleton watch as most of the pirates are away on a shore mission.

OK, let's assume that the party sees a skeleton crew on the ship... how do they know that what they see constitutes the only pirates there? That there can't be a couple more hanging out below deck? Have they scanned the ship with X-ray vision? Sure, the PCs have talked to people, and they think they know the correct number, but they can't be off by a few?

Daggerheart uses 4e-style minions? Any interest I might have had in the system pretty much just vanished.

I have no idea how it was done in 4e, but in Daggerheart, it's clearly stated that defeated doesn't have to mean dead. All it means is that when the minion (or indeed, any adversary) is reduced to 0 HP, they're out of the fight--they could be dead, but they could also be knocked unconscious, dying, playing dead, running away, choosing to surrender, and so on. The player can say that they're outright killing the minion, or the GM can simply assume that the PCs are killing them, but that doesn't have to be the case. They're not coming back as adversaries in this scene (or possibly ever), and that's the important thing. But it also means they don't really have just one HP.

I try to think of how monsters and people would defend their homes, and the PCs sometimes suffer for this. Very first adventure in my current game, a 1st-level party wandering in the forest stumbled on to the lair of an Ogre. As said Ogre lived fairly close to the Caves of Chaos and was constantly being annoyed by the inhabitants there he'd rigged up a simple landslide trap as a defense, and when the PCs entered he set it off. Natural 20. 4 PCs instantly dead, the rest fleeing for their lives. Meanwhile the Ogre has a very nice lunch while re-setting his trap...

Right, and that's not "fair to the PCs" either (especially if you had done this in an edition where such a trap might bring the encounter above the party's level, and since that instakilled four players, it definitely was), nor is there any way for the PCs to have foreseen such a thing--unless you want the players to be seriously paranoid all the time. Meaning that there's really no difference, in terms of "fairness", between this and bringing out some extra mooks to support the bad guy.

If they do some questioning (and get verifiably true answers) they don't need to read my notes.

If you're springing traps that can instantly kill multiple people in a party, then I wouldn't trust your honesty...

 

[Thomas Shey]

Naturally, I was skeptical that the dungeon denizens would be quite so static (i.e. that they'd send out trackers and skirmishers of their own in response to an alarm being sounded after the PCs were reported to have left), and derided his line of thinking as a "booga booga tactic," a name that—to my chargin—he found hilarious, and apparently still uses when discussing this type of scenario.

The problem is that unless you've already got a second defensive perimeter around the "dungeon", that still favors the attackers; they drop back and set up ambushes to pick off the trackers and skirmishers. That's just a consequence of the fact the attackers only have to be prepared when they're ready to attack, where the defenders either have to be ready all the time, or at least have rotating response units that can do so quickly--but quickly is a relative term. And D&D and its close kin are very vulnerable to resource depletion if you expend them setting up a response unless you're absolutely sure you can engage. It makes hit and run tactics disproportionately effective; you need to have serious, serious number superiority as a defender before its not a problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is that unless you've already got a second defensive perimeter around the "dungeon", that still favors the attackers; they drop back and set up ambushes to pick off the trackers and skirmishers. That's just a consequence of the fact the attackers only have to be prepared when they're ready to attack, where the defenders either have to be ready all the time, or at least have rotating response units that can do so quickly--but quickly is a relative term. And D&D and its close kin are very vulnerable to resource depletion if you expend them setting up a response unless you're absolutely sure you can engage. It makes hit and run tactics disproportionately effective; you need to have serious, serious number superiority as a defender before its not a problem.

It's the age-old problem of sieges.

If you have the resources inside--or can get them through unblocked routes, such as a siege only by land when the defenders have ports--then the attackers have to actually breach the defenses, which is often a Herculean and unenviable task. The attackers then must slowly burn through their supplies, something that is a pain point for every army forever (hence why Sun Tzu repeatedly warned against sieges if any alternative was available)--making it a war of attrition when attackers are always already dealing with attrition anyway.

If you don't have the resources inside, you'll die. It's that simple. You're already going to lose the war of attrition, and the losses will be compounded by the starvation and such.

The only ambiguity is the cases where you have finite but substantial supplies. A protracted siege is worse for attackers, generally speaking, but a brief siege (due to inadequate resources) is worse for defenders. It's the "backed into a corner" effect. A corner is defensible if you're strong enough to hold out. It's a death sentence if you aren't. Again, protracted vs. brief. D&D doesn't handle "protracted" anything very well. It's not really designed for such things, never has been. So any siege is much more likely to be brief than protracted...and that favors the attacker.

 

[Lanefan]

"Not that type of game" in that the players and GM are building the story together and are aware that being cinematic may take precedence over counting out the exact numbers.

If cinematics happen, they happen, but I'm not going to try to force them.

Of course, that assumes that the PCs have those abilities, which is not a guarantee. Or that a living pirate will tell the truth (neither bribes nor torture are actually all that good at getting the truth out of people),

Persuasion can be, and I include offer of paid employment under "bribe".

and speak with dead specifically points out how cryptic and easily misunderstood the replies will be.

I long ago ruled that a corpse can't obfuscate or lie when hit with Speak With Dead, as such actions require the corpse to be able to think for itself and corpses usually can't do that. Therefore, any answers (which can't be longer than just a few words) given will reflect what the corpse actually knew when alive.

Now the corpse's knowledge may have been incomplete, inaccurate, or have since become out of date; or it may not have had the desired knowledge at all, but that's different. The corpse can't lie or obfuscate unless there's something very strange happening (usually involving divine interference).

OK, let's assume that the party sees a skeleton crew on the ship... how do they know that what they see constitutes the only pirates there? That there can't be a couple more hanging out below deck? Have they scanned the ship with X-ray vision? Sure, the PCs have talked to people, and they think they know the correct number, but they can't be off by a few?

If the party's been reliably told there's a full crew of 45-plus-officers on board yet on arrival all they see is two guards standing watch, that should be a pretty big clue that something's not right and - I hope! - they'll start wondering where the rest have gone. Same as if they arrive and see 100 pirates carousing on deck instead of the half-that they'd been told about: what's going on?

In either case their choices are to a) carry on and hope for the best or b) renew their info-gathering efforts and find out why things have changed.

I have no idea how it was done in 4e, but in Daggerheart, it's clearly stated that defeated doesn't have to mean dead. All it means is that when the minion (or indeed, any adversary) is reduced to 0 HP, they're out of the fight--they could be dead, but they could also be knocked unconscious, dying, playing dead, running away, choosing to surrender, and so on. The player can say that they're outright killing the minion, or the GM can simply assume that the PCs are killing them, but that doesn't have to be the case. They're not coming back as adversaries in this scene (or possibly ever), and that's the important thing. But it also means they don't really have just one HP.

Ah. I see hit points as an intrinsic property of the creature: if a pirate has ten hit points max when his buddy attacks him he also has ten hit points max when a PC attacks him or when a kitten attacks him or when nobody's attacking him.

4e had foes' mechanical properties change based on who-what was attacking them, which completely blows up internal setting consistency when it comes to game mechanics. The same Ogre (let's call him Bob) would be an Elite if facing a level-1 party and a Minion if facing a level-15 group, where to me Bob is Bob and always has 45 hit points (unless he's taken damage) no matter what and has the same combat capabilties against any foe because that's just who he is.

Right, and that's not "fair to the PCs" either (especially if you had done this in an edition where such a trap might bring the encounter above the party's level, and since that instakilled four players, it definitely was), nor is there any way for the PCs to have foreseen such a thing--unless you want the players to be seriously paranoid all the time. Meaning that there's really no difference, in terms of "fairness", between this and bringing out some extra mooks to support the bad guy.

Going in I thought the trap might knock out one or two and-or maaaybe kill one, but a crit-20 is a crit-20 (and crits in our system can get real nasty!) and I don't pull my punches. I seem to recall they'd had chances to notice the trap but either didn't due to bad luck or didn't because they didn't even try; that party were often more concerned with keeping eyes on each other than on anything around them - it was a very knife-in-the-back sort of crew.

If you're springing traps that can instantly kill multiple people in a party, then I wouldn't trust your honesty...

Where I'd not trust my own honesty if, having sprung the trap, I then pulled my punch such that less damage was done and fewer or none of them died.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's the age-old problem of sieges.

If you have the resources inside--or can get them through unblocked routes, such as a siege only by land when the defenders have ports--then the attackers have to actually breach the defenses, which is often a Herculean and unenviable task. The attackers then must slowly burn through their supplies, something that is a pain point for every army forever (hence why Sun Tzu repeatedly warned against sieges if any alternative was available)--making it a war of attrition when attackers are always already dealing with attrition anyway.

If you don't have the resources inside, you'll die. It's that simple. You're already going to lose the war of attrition, and the losses will be compounded by the starvation and such.

The only ambiguity is the cases where you have finite but substantial supplies. A protracted siege is worse for attackers, generally speaking, but a brief siege (due to inadequate resources) is worse for defenders. It's the "backed into a corner" effect. A corner is defensible if you're strong enough to hold out. It's a death sentence if you aren't. Again, protracted vs. brief. D&D doesn't handle "protracted" anything very well. It's not really designed for such things, never has been. So any siege is much more likely to be brief than protracted...and that favors the attacker.

Except its even worth with D&D/F20 parties because they A) Are more analogous to commando groups that conventional forces, and B) Above a certain level are very hard to keep out because of the tools they have for bypassing fortifications or even defensive lines.

The most extreme case of this was visible with 3e era alpha-striking which throughout a lot of the edition's history was almost impossible to defend against above a certain level. It made superheroes look easy to defend against by comparison.