Roles in Roleplaying Games

[Hassassin]

Depends on what you're trying to simulate.

The real world? Then my question is, why? What makes striking someone without the intent to kill inherently more difficult?

Fantasy fiction? The fantasy heroes I read and watch don't seem to have any more difficulty knocking a foe out than running them down with a sword.

LurkAway already wrote pretty much what I would have answered. Lethal weapons are made to be, well, lethal, so trying to keep from accidentally hurting your opponent will be more difficult than taking whatever openings you get.

It's also quite common in fantasy fiction that in a fight someone accidentally kills e.g. an assassin that they ought to have questioned, because they had to fight "for real". (I'm not trying to model fantasy fiction, but many things that are common in fiction are so because they make for a good story.)

In any case, the simulation angle isn't *that* important to me - I only care about having enough simulation to make the game believable. More importantly, the nonlethal damage system plays pretty well for such a simple approximation and produces interesting scenarios.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Assuming you're trying to knock them out with a kick or sword hilt punch, I think it's risky. Bring fists into a knife fight, you will likely get cut.. badly. Bring fists into a sword fight is probably worst. You can try to use your sword to cripple instead of kill, but it still carries the risk that they will stab you lethally as a reward. I heard that police shoot to kill if the man wounded in the leg or arm can still lurch forward to harm you.

The rules in this case don't assume you are trying to use a kick or punch. You get all of your relevant bonuses with the weapon you use, so I would assume you are still using the weapon. Flat of the blade instead of the edge, etc. And what you describe seems more like an AoO situation than a -4 to hit.

I guess because watching the protagonist getting stabbed multiple times with a sword is too unbelievable, so the kicks and sword hilt punches magically connect more often than the blade. Not sure how this translates into RPGs, I'm not aware of D&D caring to address it one way or another.

Depends on edition. 4E addresses this by allowing heroes to knock out opponents.

LurkAway already wrote pretty much what I would have answered. Lethal weapons are made to be, well, lethal, so trying to keep from accidentally hurting your opponent will be more difficult than taking whatever openings you get.

I think you're making a different point than LurkAway did. And this is the point of view I believe the designers took with 3E.

It's also quite common in fantasy fiction that in a fight someone accidentally kills e.g. an assassin that they ought to have questioned, because they had to fight "for real". (I'm not trying to model fantasy fiction, but many things that are common in fiction are so because they make for a good story.)

Even in 4E I *think* you can still accidentally kill someone. At least I would rule that anyone at negative bloodied was dead whether you intended to kill them or not. I'm not certain the RAW matches my ruling though.

In any case, the simulation angle isn't *that* important to me - I only care about having enough simulation to make the game believable. More importantly, the nonlethal damage system plays pretty well for such a simple approximation and produces interesting scenarios.

I think it really varies table to table. I have players that would never accept a -4 to hit. They saw no value in it. If they couldn't rescue an enemy from death's door they didn't care. Others did see the value.

 

[Hassassin]

Even in 4E I *think* you can still accidentally kill someone. At least I would rule that anyone at negative bloodied was dead whether you intended to kill them or not. I'm not certain the RAW matches my ruling though.

Ok, I didn't know that. As I wrote before, limited experience with 4e.

Doesn't hit point scaling mean that at high levels it becomes much less likely?

I think it really varies table to table. I have players that would never accept a -4 to hit. They saw no value in it. If they couldn't rescue an enemy from death's door they didn't care. Others did see the value.

Frankly, I think that's "bad roleplaying"*/blatant metagaming. I have played *characters* who'd never "take -4 to hit" for such a reason, but that's because they have been some combination of: ruthless, amoral, self-centered or afraid to die. And that's how I like the decision - an opportunity for expressing the character.

* Nothing wrong if you like your game that way, of course.

 

[LurkAway]

The rules in this case don't assume you are trying to use a kick or punch. You get all of your relevant bonuses with the weapon you use, so I would assume you are still using the weapon. Flat of the blade instead of the edge, etc. And what you describe seems more like an AoO situation than a -4 to hit.

Yes, there's a good chance that you will land a knocking blow to find that you've been stabbed which could well be modelled as an AoO. But in real life, if unarmed vs a opponent with a knife, you're in an extremely dangerous situation. You'll try to run away safely if you can. Otherwise, you'll expend an enormous amount of focus and energy just trying not to get stabbed. You'll dodge. You'll try to block the incoming knife thrusts, and you will likely get cut multiple times, but at least it wil be superficial cuts on the arms, etc. instead of a stab into the vitals. You can try to disarm, if you know the right move, but you need luck, good timing and it helps to be faster and/or stronger. All in all, you're usually on the defensive waiting for an opening to land a solid punch. This is assuming you're punching or trying to use the hilt of a sword to knock out your opponent -- which is what I've seen in fantasy movies anyway. I can't recall ever seeing a movie scene of a guy being knocked out with the flat of a blade -- and in real life, I suspect it would be clumsy and difficult but what do I know about real-life medieval combat? What I do know is most movie scenes of medieval warfare show warriors attacking to kill and then after the battle, checking to see who is still alive for ransom or interrogation. How all these lines of thinking apply to 3E and/or 4E I'm not sure. I think that as an overall abstraction, knocking out an opponent as a function of chance is more in line with real-life and gritty fantasy but not maybe pulpish adventure which is over the top and doesn't try to be realistic anyway.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Doesn't hit point scaling mean that at high levels it becomes much less likely?

Yes.

Frankly, I think that's "bad roleplaying"*/blatant metagaming. I have played *characters* who'd never "take -4 to hit" for such a reason, but that's because they have been some combination of: ruthless, amoral, self-centered or afraid to die. And that's how I like the decision - an opportunity for expressing the character.

Funnily enough *every* character they play is a ruthless, amoral, self-centered loner whose entire family died.

IOW, if confronted with this justification (which I think is worthy), they just make sure they cannot be confronted with it so they don't have to deal with the penalty the rules tack on.

In our 4E games these same players will roleplay their character either way. Taking prisoners and even letting the bad guys go if appropriate for their character.

Yes, there's a good chance that you will land a knocking blow to find that you've been stabbed which could well be modelled as an AoO. But in real life, if unarmed vs a opponent with a knife, you're in an extremely dangerous situation. You'll try to run away safely if you can. Otherwise, you'll expend an enormous amount of focus and energy just trying not to get stabbed. You'll dodge. You'll try to block the incoming knife thrusts, and you will likely get cut multiple times, but at least it wil be superficial cuts on the arms, etc. instead of a stab into the vitals. You can try to disarm, if you know the right move, but you need luck, good timing and it helps to be faster and/or stronger. All in all, you're usually on the defensive waiting for an opening to land a solid punch.

Then why can't you forego the -4 penalty and open yourself up to an attack? And why do you still get the -4 penalty against an unarmed opponent such as a wizard holding nothing more than a wand? Even if you attempt it against an unnarmed peasant (Com1) you still get the -4 penalty, why is that if the -4 is meant to represent dodging?

This is assuming you're punching or trying to use the hilt of a sword to knock out your opponent -- which is what I've seen in fantasy movies anyway. I can't recall ever seeing a movie scene of a guy being knocked out with the flat of a blade -- and in real life, I suspect it would be clumsy and difficult but what do I know about real-life medieval combat? What I do know is most movie scenes of medieval warfare show warriors attacking to kill and then after the battle, checking to see who is still alive for ransom or interrogation. How all these lines of thinking apply to 3E and/or 4E I'm not sure. I think that as an overall abstraction, knocking out an opponent as a function of chance is more in line with real-life and gritty fantasy but not maybe pulpish adventure which is over the top and doesn't try to be realistic anyway.

True. They could have presented multiple rules for this in 4E easily. The prior edition -4 to hit could have been an option for grittier games. It's easily insertable.

 

[LurkAway]

Then why can't you forego the -4 penalty and open yourself up to an attack? And why do you still get the -4 penalty against an unarmed opponent such as a wizard holding nothing more than a wand? Even if you attempt it against an unnarmed peasant (Com1) you still get the -4 penalty, why is that if the -4 is meant to represent dodging?

I'm getting confused. I can't justify how D&D simulates subdual damage in a case by case scenario, and I don't think D&D does it robustly. I was only responding to your post questioning and/or refuting that it was more difficult to knock out an opponent trying to kill you -- and overall I think it is. So the 3E way may crudely and very innaccurately abstract that difficulty, but 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm getting confused. I can't justify how D&D simulates subdual damage in a case by case scenario, and I don't think D&D does it robustly. I was only responding to your post questioning and/or refuting that it was more difficult to knock out an opponent trying to kill you -- and overall I think it is. So the 3E way may crudely and very innaccurately abstract that difficulty, but 4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.

I aologize if it seemed I was saying that 4E emulates real life better, I was not trying to say that.

IMO it is futile to attempt to model reality with dice because everyone seems to have a different take on how that should occur. I'd rather model heroic fantasy where a hero can knock out a villain when the stroy calls for it. 4E has had the best solution to date for my group. I even said upthread that other options should have been presented for a grittier take on the matter.

 

[pemerton]

If every moment of the game were dramatic, the game would be much less dramatic.

<snip>

To me, that sounds like a soap opera. And, to me, that's not good fiction.

I don't agree. You quoted definition of "dramatic" included

A situation or succession of events in real life having the dramatic progression or emotional effect characteristic of a play​

Some plays - perhaps many - are good fiction without being soap operas. My game is in fact not particularly good fiction, and rather soap operatic - if me and my players were capable of generating better fiction, probably we'd be professional writers rather than the academics, financiers, IT professionals and labourers that we are.

But the fact that every moment of a play or a movie is dramatic in the sense of "having the dramatic progression and emotional effect characteristic of a play" doesn't get in the way of it being good drama. And I believe the same is true of an RPG.

Now, of cousre there is room in the world for movies like Empire, but I personally have little interest in watching them. Likewise with my RPGing - I want it to be dramatic in the sense that you quoted and I requoted.

Sorry?

You said this upthread:

But,story matters. It's definitely not hack and slash; for example, they players get into a fight about every two sessions, and our sessions last about 10 hours. So, one fight every 20 or so hours (with occasional spikes). We're satisfied with that, or there'd be more fights (they'd pick them, or otherwise seek them out).

The rest of the time is engaging with the setting, or simulationist play.

This suggested to me you saw roleplaying as being at odds with combat, and that you saw simulation as being something that occurs outside combat. I didn't follow either of these ponts. I think that, in D&D but also in some other fantasy RPGs as well, combat is one important place where roleplaying takes place. And I also think combat is one part of the game where the contrast between simulationist and non-simulationist priorities for play can emerge.

now we're just talking about simulationist mechanics. And, from my experience, they lead to as much drama and tension as you pursue, plus whatever the world gives you. If that hasn't been your experience, may I put forth the possibility that "the fiction was not very good"?

You may. I don't think you're right, though. There are at least two reasons that simulationist mechanics of a purist-for-system variety can get in the way of dramatic play.

First, they make opening and closing scenes hard, because there is no end to the causal repercussions taken, and by definition purist-for-system mechanics have no constraints on their consequences outside of ingame causal logic.

Second, they are apt to produce results that are not shaped by the thematic concerns of the story. There is no guarantee, for example, that the battle by a PC with his/her life long nemesis will be more dramatic than that with the nemesis's body guard. There is no guarantee that, when the PC confronts his/her nemesis, s/he will draw upon reserves of fortitude and courage that lesser confrontations do not elicit. Contrast, for example, Relationship augments in HeroWars/Quest, or Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel.

It is in order to avoid these problems that games that want to produce a dramatic play experience, but use essentially purist-for-system mechanics - Storyteller, 2nd ed AD&D, etc - have "rules" telling the GM to suspend the action resolution mechanics in the interests of story.

I personally agree with Ron Edwards that this is among the most dysfunctional approach to RPGing possible. The whole purpose of "modern" game design is to design mechanical techniques of play that will produce drama (in the sense you quoted and I requoted) without anyone at the table - either player or, moreso, the GM by using rules-suspending force - having to deliberately try to author it.

4e has a range of mechanics that deal with the first issue I mentioned. The combat mechanics, including the pacing and decision-making that they force, is a significant component of the total suite of such mechanics.

4e relies upon the GM's approach to encounter building to deal with the second issue (it doesn't include player-side elements like Spiritual Attributes or Relationship-based augments, although some Paragon Path powers can push a little bit in this direction). But it gives the GM tools (both mechanical tools and story elements) that make this encounter building very easy compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.

 

[pemerton]

Not sure how this translates into RPGs, I'm not aware of D&D caring to address it one way or another.

As [MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION] posted, 4e addresses this with the option to kill or subdue an opponent when reducing him/her to 0 hp.

4E's method of allowing the PC 100% control over that outcome (if that's indeed the RAW) without difficulty or AoO is not any better in terms of simulating the real-life difficulty of trying to knock out an opponent who is trying very hard to kill you.

In 4e it's not the PC who has the control, it is the player. It's just one example of 4e granting players a degree of narrative control over aspects of the gameworld other than their PCs. (At my own table, we play it this way: the player must declare in advance of an attack whether his/her desire is death or subdual, and then if the attack reduces the NPC to 0 hp the player's desire is realised.)

Maybe I'm just more simulationist, but IMO trying to subdue someone non-lethally *needs* to be more difficult. If it's not suboptimal there's no weight to the choice.

Without a cost, doesn't it reduce to just an alignment check? "Ok, I'm LG and that's a human, so we'll have to haul him to the authorities."

I can't speak for [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], but yes, this sounds to me very different from how I like to play the game, and more simulationist.

In my game, the weight of the choice between killing and taking prisoner isn't about mechanical trade-offs. It's about thematic/evaluative trade-offs.

I agree with you that in a game with a mechanical alignment system, the choice of alignment already predetermines what those thematic/evaluative trade-offs should be. That's one reason why I hate mechanical alignment systems and have not used them since the mid-80s, when I read the article in Dragon 101 called "For King and Country".

A similar discussion to this one came up earlier this year when I posted about a skill challenge involving my PCs taming a dire bear without killing it:

the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures). That was another metagame-driven decision.

in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.

I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

<snip>

if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

I tend to agree with Victim in this discussion. If what you want are choices that are thematically/evaulatively expressive, then mechanical penalties and advantages will get in the way of such choices, because they will intefere with the choice situation by overlaying it with the sorts of considerations of optimality and expedience that Victim talks about.

In my 4e game, decisions by the players about who their PCs kill and who they take prisoner are highly meaningful and carry a lot of weight, precisely because those decisions were made even though the player could just as easily had the PC not be a killer.

 

[tomBitonti]

Sure, and the rules don't get in the way of doing it like that.

I'm not sure I follow your point ...

In my example, once the cat had been unleashed, there was no taking back the result (unless the cat rolled very poorly).

The moment would have been much less exciting if the player could have decided after they had their cat pounce that the worker wasn't killed.

TomB