The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience ...

All roads do NOT lead to Rome....

Just speaking for myself here, but I don't for a second challenge your experience, or Hussar's or anyone else's.

But, all that means to me is that different groups sit down to the table with very different notions and expectations.

Now I would not ever suggest that there are two points of view here. It is vastly more complex than that. But, for sake of discussion, lets just assume people with experiences like you and Hussar and people with experiences like Abraxas and myself.

I fully expect that, for people in the former group, 4E not only provides ever bit of value that 3E provided, it also does a better job of it.

But, for the latter group, 3E does a vastly better job.

I also think that 3E does a much better job of supporting the former style than 4E does of supporting the latter. That doesn't mean that 4E doesn't still do far better for 4E style. It just means you can't look at these comparisons as mirror images and get an accurate assessment.

Quite simply Hussar's claim is not a fact, it is just a personal observation. I honestly don't keep track of how often trips are used. I think the very idea that this is a point of contention is just hydra head number (big number)+1 demonstrating that the point doesn't not translate between the two groups.

More trips or less trips don't matter. If you think it does, then you don't understand where we are coming from.

My answer to the question is: trips get used every time the player wants to. The rules do not play a factor in that question. Yes, a character who is not conceived as someone who is going to do a lot of tripping will want to try to trip someone less frequently than one who is conceived that way. But "daily" or "until I run out of cards" or whatever gamist mechanic of the moment applies will not be any part of the answer.

Yes, having tripping be hard to do without being trained to do it will discourage trying in lieu of other, easy to complete options. My response to that is: YES!!! Hurray!!! Things that are hard, should be hard. And characters choosing not do things that are harder is not a system flaw. Now, we can debate whether or not 3E did a good job of providing a system for making tripping appropriately hard. (I think it is fine, but could be better.)

But how good 3E does at modeling it is really a different debate altogether. The point is: is the decision based on whether or not a player thinks the character would decide to try or is it based on gamist mechanic of the moment?

 

[Abraxas]

[MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION]... I'm confused on this because I don't see how your experience invalidates Hussar's claim that because trip was explicitly in the rules, that it was used more often. I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience where only those with Improved Trip actually used it with any regularity... even at low levels. So I'm also wondering if your experience where trip was being used all over the place is more of an outlier. Or is it that my experience is more of an outlier.

Hmmm - i didn't think that was what he was claiming, he posted
"What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone. The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?"

To which I replied that my group must be different - and every group I've played 3.XE in - because we saw it used fairly often - and as I pointed out, it was probably used more by the NPCs because when it works it really hampers the PCs.

We also saw other combat maneuvers like sunder and disarm used, plus characters using tanglefoot bags and alchemist fire, plus any other trick we could use to get an edge - and any trick we used, the NPCs used to.

I find it hard to believe that we were unique in this.

 

[Lalato]

[MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION], thanks for clarifying that for me.

I don't think you were unique in this. In the groups I played in trips, sunder, disarm and every other combat maneuver and option was used. And yes, NPCs used those options as well. However, the only distinction I would make is that those options were mostly used by PCs and NPCs with the appropriate feats.

That's not to say that folks didn't try those options every once in a while when their backs were to the wall. However, those attempts ended in failure more often than not... so people tended to gravitate away from them until they got the appropriate feat... at least in my groups.

As for BryonD's assertion... I have no idea what to make of it. I'm pretty sure that what I wanted to get out of the game was a fun D&D session... and not much else. Abraxas, when you play 3.x... are you after a fun D&D session too or are you after something else?

 

[Hussar]

My answer to the question is: trips get used every time the player wants to. The rules do not play a factor in that question. Yes, a character who is not conceived as someone who is going to do a lot of tripping will want to try to trip someone less frequently than one who is conceived that way. But "daily" or "until I run out of cards" or whatever gamist mechanic of the moment applies will not be any part of the answer.

See, I disagree. The mechanics totally play a factor in the question of "Do I want to do X" in a given system. I think it's hair splitting to say there's a significant difference to "You can try this all you like, but you will fail almost every time" and "You can't do this at all."

Obviously we disagree on this.

But how good 3E does at modeling it is really a different debate altogether. The point is: is the decision based on whether or not a player thinks the character would decide to try or is it based on gamist mechanic of the moment?

I don't think you can separate the two. Players are not stupid. They are not going to attempt actions that will almost certainly fail, particularly if failure carries consequences beyond simply failing. Players will very often be able to calculate the odds of success pretty easily and will, again very often, base their actions on a risk/reward basis.

Nearly all the risk and reward is mechanically determined which means that the players actions will very often be determined by the mechanics of the system.

If the mechanics say, "You can do this and it will work if you hit" then players will do it if they think they will hit. If the mechanics say, "You can try this but your chances of success are slim and if you fail, you're going to get punished" then, unless that success is critical, they won't do it.

The only real difference here with 4e is that 4e says, "You can do this now and it will work, if you hit but you won't be able to do it later. Is it worth it to do it now?", so the decision is shifted from playing the odds at the moment to playing a longer game where you might not have this resource later on down the line.

But, in both cases, the player's decisions will be very largely influenced by the mechanics. Players don't make decisions in a vacuum very often, unless you're free-forming. That assessment of risk/reward is always going to come into the decision making process.

I'd disagree with this, for the most part; IME social interaction is the province of free-form roleplaying.

From a personal point of view, I'm kinda ambivalent. I can see the value in both systems and, depending on who I'm playing with and what game, I can swing from either side of the plate.

But, I don't think it's deniable to say that most RPG's now come with social interaction rules. It's pretty rare to find any games outside of OSR stuff that leaves social interaction entirely freeform. It's certainly there, sure, but, I think the players have largely spoken on this issue and decided that social mechanics are a good thing.

 

[pemerton]

trips get used every time the player wants to. The rules do not play a factor in that question.

<snip>

Yes, having tripping be hard to do without being trained to do it will discourage trying in lieu of other, easy to complete options. My response to that is: YES!!! Hurray!!! Things that are hard, should be hard. And characters choosing not do things that are harder is not a system flaw.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying.

I agree that PCs will try to trip only when their players want them to. This is also true in 4e. (I assume we're putting to one side here domination etc).

But are you saying that at your table, the (mechanically-determined) prospects of success of a trip attempt don't make a difference to whether or not a given player wants to have his/her PC attempt a trip.

If the answer to this question is No, then it seems that the rules are playing a factor. But you said they're not. Which implies that the answer to the question is Yes, and that players at your table do not have regard to the (mechanically-determined) prospects of the success of a trip attempt in deciding whether or not to have their PCs attempt to trip opponents.

I've never come across such a player myself, but I'm happy to admit that the world is full of surprising things. Does this disregard of the mechanically-determined prospects of success extend to other areas of the game?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Players are not stupid. They are not going to attempt actions that will almost certainly fail, particularly if failure carries consequences beyond simply failing. Players will very often be able to calculate the odds of success pretty easily and will, again very often, base their actions on a risk/reward basis.

I'd go a step further. Characters are not stupid. And those that are don't live long. If you are playing a character who does what he does entirely independently of the chance of success then to put matters bluntly you are roleplaying a madman.