The Tragedy of Flat Math

[Chris_Nightwing]

On scaling, the door and so on..

There is a nice door table in 4E, and I think it makes sense that challenges get 'harder' as you get 'better' such that you can attempt them with the same reasonable chance as you did ten levels before.

What doesn't work, for me, is the scale of the scaling. Characters universally get better at knocking down wooden doors so that, in my mind, a trip home to see the wife and kids becomes a comical 'I don't know my own strength' scenario in which all the crockery and doors end up broken.

So if we must scale such things, there should be some degree of choice in what scales and, in my opinion, doors should be overcome with more than just the generic fact you are high level - something you've gained as a result of your high level should do that, be it strength or magic.

 

[slobo777]

What doesn't work, for me, is the scale of the scaling. Characters universally get better at knocking down wooden doors so that, in my mind, a trip home to see the wife and kids becomes a comical 'I don't know my own strength' scenario in which all the crockery and doors end up broken.

So if we must scale such things, there should be some degree of choice in what scales and, in my opinion, doors should be overcome with more than just the generic fact you are high level - something you've gained as a result of your high level should do that, be it strength or magic.

Actually what I don't like is the mostly unwritten assumption that characters are pulling from their power source to achieve results. Otherwise it makes no sense for e.g. a weakling but experienced wizard to be able to smash through barred doors easily in a feat of strength. He or she must be using a bit of arcane oomph to do so. It's just assumed, and very quietly, that this kind of thing is going on. Same is generally true of physical defences.

However, actually describing the boosts to abilities necessary for balance, as a list of At-Will spells, powers or class features would be rather wasteful.

I think this is one area where bounded accuracy in D&D Next wins for me. It will allow for general balance whilst keeping the wimpy wizards feeling wimpy in an absolute-compared-to-the-gameworld way. And where it might make sense that they are not, they will need a spell for it, so it's not hidden away in the maths.

 

[Argyle King]

Interesting discussion about AC.

For 3E, the to-hit chance was typically +6 with AC 13-18 at first level being quite typical. But, as you got higher in level the to-hit chance scaled a lot faster than AC and I remember fighting Dragons and having to roll 2 to hit. With Haste it was typically not until my target numbers where often something like 2, 2, 5, 10, 15. For lesser foes, I often couldn't miss. (Level 17 cleric with lots of fun buff spells).

In 4e they tried and more or less successfully kept the to hit rate around 50% in my experience (I have played up to level 9).

I've had 4E encounters in which the party was virtually immune to the attacks of the enemy while simultaneously needing to roll a 1 to miss.

In particular, I remember one of the campaigns I played in to 30 in which I was playing a Warlord and one of the other players was playing a Psion. I had powers which would grant to-hit bonuses to the party and damage bonuses to the party. The Psion had powers which gave penalties to attacks and defenses of the enemy. You can quickly see how that combo gets out of hand rather easily; even without the players trying to break the game.

Thinking back on my time as a player, I'd say most of my 4E encounters went something like that. Some characters I've played didn't even need to worry about hitting to do damage. Damage wasn't even the biggest concern a lot of the time. If the monsters even got a chance to move or do anything before being stunned, put the sleep, or something similar, they were doing exceptionally well. I remember being banned from using dimensional shackles ever again after putting a pair on a demon and then Sparta-kicking it off of a cliff. (I didn't feel like grinding through his HP, so I looked at the items I had to see if there was a way to speed things up.)

 

[pemerton]

Actually what I don't like is the mostly unwritten assumption that characters are pulling from their power source to achieve results. Otherwise it makes no sense for e.g. a weakling but experienced wizard to be able to smash through barred doors easily in a feat of strength. He or she must be using a bit of arcane oomph to do so. It's just assumed, and very quietly, that this kind of thing is going on. Same is generally true of physical defences.

<snip>

I think this is one area where bounded accuracy in D&D Next wins for me. It will allow for general balance whilst keeping the wimpy wizards feeling wimpy in an absolute-compared-to-the-gameworld way. And where it might make sense that they are not, they will need a spell for it, so it's not hidden away in the maths.

Just as an aside, what you describe here about "power source abilities" being hidden away in the maths is central to Gygax's explanation of saving throws in his DMG. An MU's save vs spells or wands, for example, is like a little counterspell that is not called out, by the system, as a discrete spell that must be memorised and cast in the normal fashion.

The radical change in saving throws from AD&D to 3E - in 3E they are not "hidden power source abilities" but reflexes, fortitude or will in some more-or-less literal sense - is one of the things that makes me sceptical that 4e is some radical outlier or transition in the overall history of D&D versions.

 

[LostSoul]

This has nothing to do with "emphasising the math, not the fluff" - apart from anything else, calling it "fluff" implies its not important.

I wonder if this is related to associated mechanics: any fiction that is not specifically connected to the mechanics is deemed unimportant, because if it were important there'd be a rule for it.

 

[B.T.]

The Tragedy of Fat Math: Rolling 1d20 + 37 against AC 48 sucks.

 

[pemerton]

I wonder if this is related to associated mechanics: any fiction that is not specifically connected to the mechanics is deemed unimportant, because if it were important there'd be a rule for it.

That's an interesting idea.

I find the role of fiction in RPGing hard to articulate. I think there is an important distinction between mere colour - "Are we fighting orcs or gnolls today?"- and colour that speaks to the rationale for playing - fighting Orcus rather than the Raven Queen matters, because of the theme and associated fictional stakes that are put into play by one rather than the other.

It seems to me to be of the essence of "story now" play that fiction matter in this way - that it be more than mere colour. But equally it must be the fiction that matters - mechanics, on their own, cannot express a theme. Although they can of course help express a theme, by their relationship (metaphorical or otherwise) to some fictional or thematic element (the Chained Cambion is in my view a strong example of this from 4e's MM3).

Whether or not this compelling fiction is generated via "associated" mechanics, or via narration that fits within the parameters established by the mechanics, seems secondary to me (though of course you have to get the allocation of narrative responsibilities write, as per the Eero Tuovinen blog on narrative technique).

 

[LostSoul]

I find the role of fiction in RPGing hard to articulate. I think there is an important distinction between mere colour - "Are we fighting orcs or gnolls today?"- and colour that speaks to the rationale for playing - fighting Orcus rather than the Raven Queen matters, because of the theme and associated fictional stakes that are put into play by one rather than the other.

My thinking is that the role of fiction is tied closely to the reward system - the fiction that plays a role in character growth is what tends to be focused on.

In Burning Wheel the fiction tends to be closely linked to that which affects Beliefs, Instincts, Traits, and checks for Advancement. These link up to Artha, Trait Votes, skill ranks, and the resolution of Beliefs - those that are completed, those that are given up, and the price paid to get there. (Fight for what you believe in. Well, what do you really believe in? What are you willing to fight for?)

In Sorcerer it's about Need, Desire, Price, the stat Descriptors, and the NPCs related to those elements. (Which is why defining those is important to play.) These all affect Humanity and finally come together to resolve the Kicker. (You have the power to get what you want - but will you sacrifice your humanity to get it?)

In Moldvay Basic D&D, the fiction that becomes important is related to dungeon exploration: light sources, time, searching, marching order, encumbrance, mapping, reaction rolls, etc. All this puts pressure on getting GP, then getting out in order to turn GP into XP, which then allows you to delve deeper into the dungeon and uncover more dangerous secrets. (Can you discover all the hidden secrets of the underworld and make it back out alive?)

In Star Wars d6 the fiction focuses on doing heroic, Star Wars-y things. That gives you Character and Force Points, which allow you to change your character and do more and more Star Wars-y things. (Let's imagine our own Star Wars movies together.)

I'm still not sure what the reward system for 5E is supposed to be.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then there are NPCs, who will routinely have ACs below 0. In D3, any number of drow have ACs well into the negatives - drow magic armour was Gygax's version of 3E's "natural armour" bonus, a veneer of fiction pasted over the need to scale ACs in order to maintain the challenge of combat.

Exactly. While AD&D technically has higher level monsters with fairly mundane ACs these monsters are neither a threat at-level nor do they appear much in adventures at-level either. When they do show up they're virtually minions, like the dozens of giants you run into in each of the G series modules, which are close to no threat to the PCs most of the time. The 'named' figures invariably have significantly better ACs. A level 11 fighter may well hit AC0 on an 9, but notice that named figures in even the early modules at that level are sporting ACs in at least the small negative digits. Boss monsters? Basically almost never hit on less than a 15 at any level, and usually its harder than that at low levels.

So, yes, there's a trend, a certain category of monsters effectively become cannon fodder at high level, but the rest still stick in the "it isn't that easy to hit this" range. Some monsters can fill both niches, like a giant that can be a boss against lower level PCs and reasonably hard to hit, but then may be nothing but a speed bump a few levels later.

In any case, the underlying point here is still that math has never been anywhere near flat in D&D, and 4e is actually the flattest it has ever been.

I have to agree with Pemerton too, the math just gets out of the way in 4e. I like that. Nobody really thinks about it, except the DM may consider a few AC tweaks during encounter design perhaps, and a player will probably think about getting an attack bonus when he's leveling up his PC. Sure, you could do away with even those considerations, but I'm very much not sure it is a good idea.

 

[B.T.]

Just as an aside, what you describe here about "power source abilities" being hidden away in the maths is central to Gygax's explanation of saving throws in his DMG. An MU's save vs spells or wands, for example, is like a little counterspell that is not called out, by the system, as a discrete spell that must be memorised and cast in the normal fashion.

Go on, because this sounds quite cool.