"Stumbling Around in My Head" - The Feeling of Dissociation as a Player

[Balesir]

With a great axe? With a bow and arrow?

With a bow, no - missiles are a competely different game

But with a (reasonable) greataxe, sure. Such an axe (a fairly reasonable one, not the ludicrous cleavers you see in some illos) can be used to hook, trip, punch, shove, block, butt stroke or jab. Oh, and swing. Your first move may well be a swing, but any capable opponent will either dodge or block it - and you'll anticipate that and have a few roll-on moves in mind.

Sure, but I don't think that's the point. I believe he's talking of the association in your mind between [ rolling the die = swinging the sword ]. It's that directness between the action in the fiction and the mechanical resolution; that it feels like you're swinging the sword when you're rolling the die.

That is exactly the directness I'm saying doesn't happen. What decides the outcome is the punch of the shield, or the shift of the feet, or the hook of the opponent's weapon - not the swing of the exploiting blade. By the time the blow that connects goes in, things generally have to be a done deal.

Typically, when a blow is initiated, it's already clear whether it will connect or not. That doesn't stop the blow completing - but, if it's not going to connect, the important thing is what will follow on from it - where will the respective weapons, shields and bodies end up after this move, and how might that situation be exploited to create an opening for a connecting shot?

In short, when a fighter commences a swing (or stab, or lunge, etc.), he or she is not waiting with bated breath to see if it connects or not - that is something that is already clear to them. The supposed parallel between the anticipation of waiting to see the result of the die roll and getting to know whether or not the blow strikes home does not exist; it's more a question of "has my move created an opening?" - followed by "the swing".

 

[Iosue]

My problem is exactly the opposite. I don't like running tenth level PCs through first level adventures, even if we've add a 0 to all the challenges. Instead of a regular Orc, it's an orc with 10 levels of fighter! And it's a 10th level pie, too! You talk about Gary Gygax, but a lot of the rules for scaling first came in in 3rd edition. If you wanted to scale up an AD&D 1 adventure by the rules, you couldn't just slap a PC level on the orcs, or give them the Advanced template; you actually had to swap them out for different monsters.

I have serious doubts regarding [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] in regards to his claims of scaling when it comes to Gygax and Arneson... almost everything I've seen on the matter suggests the opposite. It'd be great if he could provide some proof to back up such a claim...

Scaling in OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D was based on the interaction of character level, monster level and dungeon level. It's one reason why they all use the word "level". In general, characters were expected to be exploring dungeon levels at their character level, or up to two levels higher or lower. Monster level was defined as HD, and it was recommended that monsters not be placed on dungeon levels more than two levels above or below their monster level. In the event that, say, a 1st level monster was found on level 2 of the dungeon, the dungeon master was expected to increase the number appearing. Or decrease it, if a higher level monster was found on a lower level.

P. 6 -The determination of just where monsters should be placed, and whether or not they will be guarding treasure, and how much of the latter if they are guarding something, can become burdensome when faced with several levels to do at one time. It is a good idea to thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monsterous guardians, and then switch to a random determination for the balance of the level.

P. 7 - Roll the die for every room or space not already allocated. A roll of a 1 or 2 indicates that there is some monster there. The monster(s) can be selected by use of the Monster Determination & Level of Monster Matrix which is given later in this booklet. The number of monsters is best determined by the level being considered and the kind of monster inhabiting the room or space.

P. B4 - A 'monster level' indicates how tough and ferocious a type of monster is. A monster's level is equal to the number of hit dice (a measure of how much damage a monster can take and still survive; see MONSTERS, page B29) it has. Some monsters have special powers and the DM may consider them one "monster level" or (or hit die) higher than the number of their hit dice.

P. B29 - 'Hit dice' also gives the level of the monster and the dungeon level on which it is most commonly found. In general, a monster's level equals its number of hit dice, ignoring any pluses or minuses. EXAMPLE: A monster with 3+1 hit dice is a third level monster and is most commonly found on the 3rd level of any dungeon. Note: if a monster has several special powers, the DM may consider it one level greater than its hit dice

A monster's level is only a guide, and a monster could be found anywhere in the dungeon, whatever the level. However, as a general rule, it is useful to limit monsters to 2 dungeon levels higher or lower than their hit dice. When monsters are encountered on dungeon levels less than the monsters' level, there should be fewer monsters than normal. And when monsters are met on dungeon levels greater than the monsters' level, there should be more monsters than normal.

P. 63 of Player's Manual - monster level -- A measure of how tough a monster is, usually equal to its hit dice.

P. 22 of Dungeon Master's Rulebook -
Monster Levels
A monster with 1 Hit Die is called a "first level" monster. A monster with 2 Hit Dice is a "second level monster", and so forth. Any "plusses" are ignored.
"Monsters are encountered more often on the dungeon level equal to their level.
Therefore, most of the Goblins encountered by a party will be found on the first level of the dungeon. Goblins will be encountered less frequently on other levels of a dungeon.
If encountered elsewhere in a dungeon, the difference between the monster's level and the dungeon level is usually no more than two.

P. 174
MONSTER ENCOUNTERED ADJUSTMENT FOR RELATIVE DUNGEON LEVEL

The Numbers column assumes that the encounter will take place on the level which is equivalent to the level assigned to the particular monster (cf. DUNGEON RANDOM MONSTER LEVEL DETERMINATION MATRIX). In order to adjust for the more difficult conditions on lower levels of the dungeon, and the relatively easier ones above, use the following rules:

Lesser monsters on lower levels have their numbers augmented by a like number of the same sort of creatures for each level of the dungeon beneath that of the assigned level of the monster type encountered. Example: First level monsters on the 2nd level of a dungeon will be twice as numerous as the Numbers variable indicates, i.e. 2-8 giant ants, rather than 1-4, if they are encountered on the 2nd level (or its equivalent) of a dungeon. The same is true for second level monsters encountered on the 3rd dungeon level, third level monsters on the 4th dungeon level, etc. There are two exceptions to this rule:

1. Characters are increased by level of experience rather than by numbers encountered, as indicated in the DUNGEON RANDOM MONSTER TABLE Notes.

2. Ninth and tenth level monsters are typically given attendant monsters, rather than greater numbers, in lower dungeon levels, i.e., a demon prince encountered on the 11th dungeon level might have a single type I demon attendant, while on the 15th level of the dungeon the same demon prince might have 5 such lesser demons or a pair of type I I I escorts.

Greater monsters on higher levels will have their numbers reduced by 1 for each level of the dungeon above their assigned level, subject to a minimum number of 1.

P. 98 -Dungeon encounters are normally set up according to levels -- 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Each level is a relative measure of the power of those creature on it. In general, the level of the table corresponds to character level, although characters may also encounter and defeat (or be challenged by) creatures from higher or lower level tables. Generally, when adventuring in a dungeon, characters should meet random encounters that are equal to or no more than two levels higher or lower than their own.

Sometimes dungeons themselves are arranged in levels (although this is by no means required). In this case, the dungeon level and the encounter table correspond. Characters on the 1st-level of the dungeon would encounter creatures from the first level encounter table. This not only keeps the power of the monsters in line with the strength of the typical party, it also maintains the logical structure of the dungeon level. It doesn't make much sense for extremely powerful monsters to mingle freely (and without consequence) among the weaker creatures that inhabit that level.

These were not hard and fast rules that had to be followed (not that scaling rules are hard and fast in 4e either), but recommendations to the DM for making dungeon levels and wandering monster encounters at a level appropriate for the characters.

 

[Argyle King]

My problem is exactly the opposite. I don't like running tenth level PCs through first level adventures, even if we've add a 0 to all the challenges. Instead of a regular Orc, it's an orc with 10 levels of fighter! And it's a 10th level pie, too! You talk about Gary Gygax, but a lot of the rules for scaling first came in in 3rd edition. If you wanted to scale up an AD&D 1 adventure by the rules, you couldn't just slap a PC level on the orcs, or give them the Advanced template; you actually had to swap them out for different monsters.

You could always port the adventures you want to run into a system without levels.

 

[prosfilaes]

Scaling in OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D was based on the interaction of character level, monster level and dungeon level. It's one reason why they all use the word "level". ...

I don't get how this is a response to me. I'm not at all against characters running into appropriate challenges*. But what those systems didn't do was simply scale challenges. If you wanted a bigger orc, you didn't scale the orc, you switched him out for an ogre. They made a tenth level dungeon for tenth level characters and didn't just scale up a first level dungeon. Even with scaling, good adventures for recent versions of D&D at high levels aren't just low level adventures scaled up; they're adventures written for high levels, that don't have scaled up orcs sitting in a dungeon where you can't fly or teleport in. If characters have an ability, then they don't play around with the rules to negate it, and use 10th level as an reason to start bringing out fire giants and behemoth hippopotamus**, not numerically suped-up goblins.

* Digression: I'd like in theory to run and play in a universe where players have to learn to have their characters run away from things. In D&D 3.x, that's challenging to do without killing a lot of PCs--the ratio of NPCs that try to escape to the ones that succeed is painfully low, and even if PCs were wise enough to try escape, I don't think they'd be much more successful. My players, I think, aren't interested, so I'm not trying it out as a DM.

** Pathfinder CR 10s. And if my players don't break out into "I want a hippopotamus for Christmas" when they have to deal with one, they're losing XP.

 

[prosfilaes]

You could always port the adventures you want to run into a system without levels.

I'm not sure I see the point. In any system where characters advance, there's going to be a point where either you increase checks into the ridiculous level--and it's no fun dumping 36 points into Lockpicking for Lockpicking-20 to discover that all the locks have advanced accordingly--or accept that those things no longer challenge the PCs. I don't know of a levelless game that has the enormous mortal to demigod ascent that D&D does, but if there is, it has the same issues D&D does.

From another direction, D&D 3.x (in this case, Pathfinder) is in my case a group choice. There are games I'd really like to play, but they're all non-D&Desque. Perhaps I could search for a game in the dungeon fantasy realm that would make me more happy, but the matter is academic and I'm not interested enough to go searching for no value. I haven't even kept up with GURPS Dungeon Fantasy releases, though I think that would be an improvement for me in many ways.

 

[JamesonCourage]

In short, when a fighter commences a swing (or stab, or lunge, etc.), he or she is not waiting with bated breath to see if it connects or not - that is something that is already clear to them.

I'm no professional fighter, but I've been in a life or death physical confrontation with weapons before (where swings and lunges were made), and this wasn't my experience. I was very concerned about whether my blow would land. And, I have much more plentiful anecdotal experience from sparring (martial arts, wrestling, padded weapons, etc.) that also makes me disagree with your claim, here.

Yeah, of course, sometimes you do know. You just know you've got it, or you're just setting someone up. But your claim here? I don't buy it as any sort of generalization. Agreeing to disagree. As always, play what you like

 

[Iosue]

I don't get how this is a response to me. I'm not at all against characters running into appropriate challenges*. But what those systems didn't do was simply scale challenges. If you wanted a bigger orc, you didn't scale the orc, you switched him out for an ogre.

No, they scaled challenges. If you were first level, and you met a band of orcs, you met 2-8 orcs. If you leveled up and went to the 3rd level of the dungeon, you met 4-16.

This is the fundamental disconnect, I think, and I guess it's not surmountable because after all the arguing it still exists. In old editions of D&D, on the whole, challenges scaled with the characters. If you went up in level and met lower level monsters, you met more of them to make it an appropriate challenge. If you didn't, then you got less XP. As you note, monsters also served as scaling challenges. As you got powerful, you met more powerful monsters.

Now, for some folks, that makes no sense. Why are there relatively few orcs on level 1, but a lot on level 3? Also, while this is a decent enough system for an exploratory dungeon crawl, it doesn't work so well when you get out into the wilderness, or find yourself in a more freeform story type adventure.

DMs want some control of the system. Even if they are making a sandbox and just want to know the relatively difficulty of a particular section of the map, DMs like to know the relative challenge of the encounters they are building. Heck, way back in the day, Mentzer's Master Rules include a calculator for determining relative level challenges.

You know, the default way to play 4e is not to scale monsters. It's to do just what we've noted here that TSR-D&D did: you either increase the number of monsters, or your swap out one monster for another. All the monsters in the 4e MMs and MVs have Levels by their names, just so a DM can gauge their relative appropriateness for an encounter.

The only thing 4e does different is it gives DMs the option, if they want, to scale up the orc into a more powerful orc, if they so want. This is still not any different from old style D&D; you had Goblin Kings with 3 HD and bodyguards with more hp than regular goblins, you had Orc Chieftains, no few monsters have HD given in a range so the DM can choose to make them weaker or stronger for whatever reason he might have. And it's not like increasing the HD of a particular monster (and thus its saves, to-hit, and XP) was an uncommon hack, even if not officially set out in the rules. There just wasn't a consistent system for it.

It seems to me that 3e provided for this very common DM need with a full system for scaling monsters up (adding levels), and 4e merely simplified and streamlined it. And it's just a mechanical system -- it's expected that there will be narrative reasons justifying the scaling up, because it doesn't otherwise happen unless the DM wills it. The DMG is chock-a-block with set, static DCs, with static damage. There's no monster, trap or DC whose stats are determined by character level. The DMG simply provides some tools for the DM to change them, if he's got a good reason to.

Some folks may not like playing in a game where a DM likes adjusting monsters up or down to fit his players, but that's a playstyle issue, not a game issue.

 

[S'mon]

I'm no professional fighter, but I've been in a life or death physical confrontation with weapons before (where swings and lunges were made), and this wasn't my experience. I was very concerned about whether my blow would land. And, I have much more plentiful anecdotal experience from sparring (martial arts, wrestling, padded weapons, etc.) that also makes me disagree with your claim, here.

Yeah, of course, sometimes you do know. You just know you've got it, or you're just setting someone up. But your claim here? I don't buy it as any sort of generalization. Agreeing to disagree. As always, play what you like

Yeah, I don't buy Balesir's claim either. It seems a a hugely exaggerated generalisation of something that can sometimes (not always) be the case in one-to-one fights between skilled opponents.

The one time in recent years when a guy took a swing at me on the street, he seemed pretty surprised when I blocked it.

 

[chaochou]

In short, when a fighter commences a swing (or stab, or lunge, etc.), he or she is not waiting with bated breath to see if it connects or not - that is something that is already clear to them.

I understand exactly what you're saying about the intricacies and subtleties of combat.

For me, though - and I use this phrase with extreme caution - the combat you're describing 'isn't D&D'. Or to turn it around, a system where a man can have 80hp while a sword does 1d8 damage is not attempting to model the harsh realities of armed combat as we understand it.

For example, if we take your example with of the Viking shield and sword. Our aggressor goes in with the edge of his shield, turns the opponent's shield and similtaneously gets a clear shot in with his sword straight into the torso (that's a successful attack roll).

In our world, that's game over. That opponent is gone, either dead or so badly wounded that he'll be killed moments later while reeling in shock and pain. But that can't happen if that opponent has 50hp.

D&D combat is something of a moveable feast. At any given moment hp are open to interpretation, as is 'to-hit', as is AC. None of them mean anything concrete. Just an interplay of numbers to paint pictures with.

All of which is a rather long way of rationalising what D&D players have done for decades - describe combat based on damage inflicted relative to remaining hp, not on the 'attack roll'. This no doubt results in descriptions of combat which would be ridiculed by a Roman Legionnaire, or a spearman in Alexander the Great's army or a Viking raider. Hey ho.

For the kind of 'realistic' combat you're describing you need a system like The Riddle of Steel, by Jake Norwood (- if you do a Youtube search for Jake you'll find lots of videos of him fighting. He's well known in the swordfighting scene and knows his stuff.)

 

[Imaro]

Scaling in OD&D, Classic D&D and AD&D was based on the interaction of character level, monster level and dungeon level. It's one reason why they all use the word "level". In general, characters were expected to be exploring dungeon levels at their character level, or up to two levels higher or lower. Monster level was defined as HD, and it was recommended that monsters not be placed on dungeon levels more than two levels above or below their monster level. In the event that, say, a 1st level monster was found on level 2 of the dungeon, the dungeon master was expected to increase the number appearing. Or decrease it, if a higher level monster was found on a lower level.


These were not hard and fast rules that had to be followed (not that scaling rules are hard and fast in 4e either), but recommendations to the DM for making dungeon levels and wandering monster encounters at a level appropriate for the characters.

Hmmm, this isn't exactly what I am speaking of... I am asking for proof that Gary and Arneson actually ran games where they scaled the challenges for their players. From the accounts I've been able to read of their actual games they didn't scale by character level and they didn't ensure that character's of a certain level only encountered challenges of a particular level. From what I've read, there was a dungeon with levels and the PC's were basically allowed to explore whatever levels of the dungeon they could reach. That's not scaling by party level, that's having a system to determine the difficulty of different levels in the dungeon(which is a different thing entirely since it is mostly for proper XP but it in no way ensures that the PC's meet appropriate challenges for their level.