Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things

[nightwalker450]

Actually, for once, I would agree with you Bill91. Any Fiction Writing 101 guide will tell you that you have to vary things up to make it more interesting.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a quicky side fight once in a while just to make things interesting.

Except you're not doing a quicky side fight to make it interesting... You're doing a quicky side fight to make it mundane and fill time, until the next important fight.

It's more that those dungeon infiltration fights should be story and not combat, and then when you encounter the dragon then its an actual fight. The combats themselves should probably not even follow the same rules, or the same layout.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As well as this way of looking at it, there is the flipside also: why not try and make every combat as dramatic as the one in which you fight the man who killed your father?

.

But the thing that makes fighting the man who killed your father dramatic is the specific condiions/emotional weight (someone killed your father and you are fighting him) and the rarity of it. If every fight is on par With inigo montoya vs. The six fingered man or luke vs. darth vader, it kind if loses its punch.

 

[pemerton]

Player fatigue. If every fight is that dramatic, then they become kind of blasé. I think RPGs need a variety of paces and intensities to remain fresh.

But the thing that makes fighting the man who killed your father dramatic is the specific condiions/emotional weight (someone killed your father and you are fighting him) and the rarity of it. If every fight is on par With inigo montoya vs. The six fingered man or luke vs. darth vader, it kind if loses its punch.

Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.

I want my game to be like that too.

 

[FickleGM]

Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.

I want my game to be like that too.

They weren't my claims, but they apply to my experiences. Also, when comparing the subject to the movies, I differentiate between a fun, plot-moving scene (encounter/combat) and a dramatically tense scene. I want that in my games, not constant, dramatically intense scenes. I hope I've made sense.

 

[billd91]

Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.

I want my game to be like that too.

Experience.

Movies may not have boring filler stuff, but they aren't all the same pace or have the same emotional significance with every scene either. In fact, they usually get criticized if they don't vary the pace and tone. Case in point: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom took a fair amount of criticism for being relentless with its action. Even positive reviews like Roger Ebert's point out the relentless pace. Most movies have some rise and fall of mood, pace, and action.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.

I want my game to be like that too.

That is different though than having every plot point equal the emotional weight of a climax (which is what fighting the guy who killed your dad is). There are many neccessary scenes in movies that don't have the sizzle of luke learning vader is is father.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

.

Experience. Both as a player and as a Gm.

 

[pemerton]

I differentiate between a fun, plot-moving scene (encounter/combat) and a dramatically tense scene. I want that in my games, not constant, dramatically intense scenes. I hope I've made sense.

Perfect sense, and I agree with your distinction.

But combat # 127 with 4 orcs in a room is neither dramatically tense nor a fun, plot-moving scene. Many D&D modules are full of encounters that (as written) don't move the plot at all. They are just filler.

I can see the purpose of these encounters in a Gygaxian, dungeoneering-style game - they offer an opportunity to show player skill by earning XP, or cleverly avoiding, or whatever. But in that sort of game, whether second wind is dramatically intense or not doesn't matter (and it was the dramatic intensity of second wind that triggered this discussion).

But in a game where story and pace are the focus, filler - as opposed to genuine plot-moving encounters - is unnecessary, in my view.

 

[Hussar]

There is a spectrum here. While high action is something I want in my D&D game, I don't want it to be a Michael Bay Transformers 2 movie. A smidgeon more plot and significance is important.

And, even some of those filler fights do serve a purpose. You're doing an exploration type adventure - lots of empty corridors and whatnot, and you want something to break up the pace so you chuck in a wandering encounter with half a dozen beasties. It's not meant to really challenge the party, nor is it a major plot point. It's there for a bit of fun and dice shaking.

Which is fine if it lasts 20 minutes or so. Not so much fun when it lasts 40 minutes to an hour.

Sure, tower of orcs adventure design is bad. I think we all agree there. But, climax fight to climax fight isn't the way to go either. There is room for a bit of variation.

 

[pemerton]

While high action is something I want in my D&D game, I don't want it to be a Michael Bay Transformers 2 movie. A smidgeon more plot and significance is important.

I agree with this. That's why I don't like filler.

doing an exploration type adventure - lots of empty corridors and whatnot, and you want something to break up the pace so you chuck in a wandering encounter with half a dozen beasties. It's not meant to really challenge the party, nor is it a major plot point. It's there for a bit of fun and dice shaking.

I'm not a big fan of exploration type adventures, mostly for this sort of reason. When I run exploration-ish scenarios, I still try to use the encounters to introduce or reinforce deeper plot points. (Ie they're not just exploration.)