Stun/Paralysis effects

[Gort]

That's like saying bungee jumping without a cord is really fun if you ignore the "splattering into the ground" part.

 

[Dausuul]

That's like saying bungee jumping without a cord is really fun if you ignore the "splattering into the ground" part.

*shrug* The rules themselves are rather schizophrenic, since you retain your ability to understand language. Most animals' Intelligence scores are too low for that, so you clearly have mental capacities above what your Intelligence would dictate. What those capacities are is up to the DM.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The blast is AOE, isn't it? So if it was still full stun/paralysis in 4e, where saving throws are reversed, the DM rolling a 20 would be a TPK every time.

The mind flayer still has a Dominate ability that certainly doesn't sound wussy.

I think this is a very insightful statement.

 

[Celebrim]

Why? Because it breaks the game, more or less; once enough monsters and PCs have SoD effects, the game becomes almost entirely about SoD -- a series of rolls to avoid being removed from the combat, with the last side to fail their last roll getting summarily killed. Without SoD (or really, Save or Stop), one can have 25th level combats work more or less like 3rd level combats. With it? Not so much.

In essence, if SoS isn't completely gone, it needs to be priced at what it is -- the near-equivalent of doing all your foe's HP in damage, all at once.

This is I think a far more pertinant (and reflective) argument than claiming that they must go because they aren't fun for the player. Alot of things that can happen to a character aren't strictly speaking 'fun for the player'. In fact, most of all failure isn't fun for the player, no matter how it happens. Everyone wants to succeed. But the However, while I think the argument is fundamentally correct, I'd like to note that it is an argument for changing the mechanics of 'Save or Suffer a Condition' not for removing 'Save or Suffer a Condition'.

That's my real complaint with 4E. It seems to think the elegant solution to any mechanical difficulty is remove the mechanic. I suspect the other solutions we see will be like Iron Heroes, and will not, IME, scale very well.

 

[Midknightsun]

Funny that, in the current campaign I play in our party ran across a whole nest of mindflayers. At first, our party of 8th level characters bumped into 2 of them and a couple thralls. . . half of the party was out of the combat after the first round, and the SoB's just kept mindblasting. If it weren't for an impressive will save, action points, and some Elan related save boosts, my character would have been toast as well. 3d4 rounds is far too long, IMHO, to be out of the action with no recourse and nothing to do for an entire combat but hope the one or two conscious PCs can save your bacon . . . and everybody elses before their brains are lunch. Its not tension at that point, really, its boredom and "We'll, I'm screwed for the next 45 minutes anyway, so I'll go play a video game."

Later we bluffed our way past a group of 4 minotaur thralls only to walk into a room of 5 flayers. . . we ran like scared little schoolgirls. . . they probably coulda tracked us by the trail of urine a feces we left behind. . .

 

[I'm A Banana]

In fact, most of all failure isn't fun for the player, no matter how it happens.

Strongly Disagree.

It doesn't matter if you win or loose, it's how you play the game.

Save or Suck essentially meant that you had to stop playing the game, and go sit on the bench.

No one has fun on the bench except the spectators.

And D&D is not a very good spectator game.

 

[apoptosis]

Strongly Disagree.

It doesn't matter if you win or loose, it's how you play the game.

Save or Suck essentially meant that you had to stop playing the game, and go sit on the bench.

No one has fun on the bench except the spectators.

And D&D is not a very good spectator game.

I personally agree that it is more important the narrative and scenes are interesting then if you win or lose...but....i know many people who are unhappy if their plans dont go they way they wanted them to.

I am not sure that issue can ever be rectified by mechanics (unless the mechanics are you never fail which would be somewhat boring for most people).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is I think a far more pertinant (and reflective) argument than claiming that they must go because they aren't fun for the player. Alot of things that can happen to a character aren't strictly speaking 'fun for the player'. In fact, most of all failure isn't fun for the player, no matter how it happens. Everyone wants to succeed. But the However, while I think the argument is fundamentally correct, I'd like to note that it is an argument for changing the mechanics of 'Save or Suffer a Condition' not for removing 'Save or Suffer a Condition'.

That's my real complaint with 4E. It seems to think the elegant solution to any mechanical difficulty is remove the mechanic. I suspect the other solutions we see will be like Iron Heroes, and will not, IME, scale very well.

Removing Save or Suffer Death is done, but Save or Suffer a Condition seems not gone. And while "Save or Death" is gone, maybe there is still a "Save or die in n rounds if nobody helps you" (with n > 1)

 

[jaer]

This is I think a far more pertinant (and reflective) argument than claiming that they must go because they aren't fun for the player. Alot of things that can happen to a character aren't strictly speaking 'fun for the player'. In fact, most of all failure isn't fun for the player, no matter how it happens. Everyone wants to succeed. But the However, while I think the argument is fundamentally correct, I'd like to note that it is an argument for changing the mechanics of 'Save or Suffer a Condition' not for removing 'Save or Suffer a Condition'.

That's my real complaint with 4E. It seems to think the elegant solution to any mechanical difficulty is remove the mechanic. I suspect the other solutions we see will be like Iron Heroes, and will not, IME, scale very well.

Honestly, I disagree with the use of the word 'fun' in this case. I don't think things should be changed to because they were not fun for the players. You are correct that there are some players who go so far as to think failure is not fun.

I think the proper way to think about it is "Is this ability creating excitement and tension for the scene?" 4e seems to be bases on the idea of creating dramatic scenes and playing them out.

Now, one can argue that there is no more dramatic moment then when the Slay Living hits and the character needs to Save or die. The problem is that all the drama is built up into one moment, one roll of the die, and then it is gone. No matter what the out-come, the tension is relieved (and either the character goes on or the player is bored).

There is much more drama to a fight that is building slowly, like a petrification effect that is slowing down the character, round by round, turning them to stone. That creates a much longer and more dramatic scene then a simple roll of the die to see if you keep fighting to go play the Wii. Struggling against the damage and different conditions and threats, saving the day and defeating the BBEG in the face of peril and beating him down with sword and spell alike. That is the stuff of stories and legends, not "I got lucky and rolled high on my fort save. He did not."

A lot of things can happen that aren't 'fun' for the character, but often they do build drama, suspense, and tension, which draws the players in and make the game all the more intense and engaging. Save or die, paralysis, stoning, and even the rolling to confirm a x3 crit can create a heavy dose of drama, but it's all or nothing. Little build up to it, and instant relief from it. I think moving away from such things will enhance game play.

 

[Celebrim]

I thought the distinction between bad things happening to the character and bad (or boring) things happening to the player has already been made.

Not only do I think that it hasn't been made, but I do not think it can be made because one's emotional responce to something ('I find this boring.') is entirely subjective. But, if you think you can draw a line above which everyone will find something exciting and below which everyone will find something boring, feel free. Don't however be suprised if someone else think's your line is unreasonable.

But at least the player got to make the attack rolls.

But, I find rolling the dice to be boring. If I'd tried to hit something for 10 rounds and failed, you'd bet I'd probably be unsatisfied with my game experience. I'm competitive, and like most gamers I want to experience some measure of success.

I would also distinguish between missing ten times in a row because the player never rolled higher than an 8, and missing ten times in a row because the player needs to roll an 18 to hit. One seems like a extraordinary run of bad luck, while the other seems to be an extraordinarily tough challenge. Most people I know would not get upset at the former - it could happen to anyone, after all. How people react to the latter can be rather complex and dependent on playstyle assumptions, so I won't go into it here.

Actually, I think most players would respond to a run of bad luck worse than they would to a difficult challenge. RPG players are superstitious about thier dice because they fear bad luck. I've seen players hit a run of bad luck and respond with real life anguish and depression. I've seen alot more respond to it by cheating.

But more to the point, this goes back to what I'm saying. That the real heart of the complaint with 'Save or Condition' isn't the 'condition', but rather the 'save'. It's too easy to lose with too big of consequences compared to the rest of the play style encouraged by D&D. You wouldn't find the same complaint with CoC because people expect to lose. Hit points are a mechanic designed to give you a reasonable expectation of success. They make it hard to lose. In the middle of that, a 'save or die' is like - in fact is - changing between two different systems with very different expectations of outcome.

However, if you frame "fun" as 100% participation instead of 100% success, you never get on that slope, any more than being able to participate in every round of a game of chess, or Hearts, or Monopoly guarantees success.

Sure you can. Quite a few multiplayer games allow you to participate long after you've no hope of success. If it is easy to get so far behind that you can't come back from it, this is generally considered a flaw in the game. Depending on your perspective, it could be a worse flaw that putting you out of the game completely. Again, its subjective. Quite a few people would count 'participate with no hope of success' as not participating. And from there, we are right on that slope again, because we open up the question of 'How little of a chance is too little?'

If death or unconsciousness occurs at or near the end of an encounter, you still reach your objective if the player was an active participant for most of it.

But that's just the problem, death or unconsciousness don't occur at or near the end of an encounter. (Although, to be honest, most ordinary encounters IME only last 3 rounds or so, so everything after the initiative roll can be deamed 'near the end'.) The frost giant can critical, the troll can bite and rend, all four hobgoblins can make thier roll and turn the low level wizard into a pin cushion, and suddenly a fight which still on paper leans to the PCs involves one less actively participating member. In fact, the above involves less participation than a save or die, because it can (and does) occur without a saving throw and indeed on occassion even without rolling initiative.

By your own standards, death or unconsciousness should never occur.