When "fun" just isn't enough.

[I'm A Banana]

What you've described isn't what any edition of D&D wants to support.

Save-or-die/suck predicaments = Sudden Catastrophe

Wandering Monsters = Hostile Environment + Slow Attrition

Vancian Magic = Attrition

Unexpected "gotcha" Traps = Sudden Catastrophe

Likewise, some of the powers of magic in the various editions have supported this model: Resurrection, teleportation, anti-magic, powerful divinations (detect evil, etc), elves detecting secret doors, dwarves knowing the depth underground...these things are specifically oriented toward a Dungeon Survival style game, where they were specifically used as counter-tactics to the things that could happen to you while trying to survive in a dungeon.

The old "Eye of the Beholder" game was pure dungeon survival as one of it's most elemental examples, based on 2e rules.

Certainly some players enjoying that style are posting about how they're not really a fan of the choices that 4e is making that run counter to that style, so it seems that earlier editions (at least the third?) supported this play style better, at least, than 4e will.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Watching your hp's slowly dwindle away over the course of days and weeks

4e still has Vancian resource management in terms of per day abilities, just like previous editions. We don't know if there is any eterno-healing, which 3e had in the form of wands of cure light wounds. So from what we currently know, 4e supports this style of play better than 3e.

as your food and water supply dwindles just as rapidly

Until the cleric casts Create Food And Water. An ability which may not exist in 4e.

Think of it in terms of "survival horror," where living to see tomorrow is an accomplishment, and your prizes consist of sturdy shovels and rusty hob-nails.

This is D&D we're talking about here? That game where PCs find thousands upon thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, a feature Gary Gygax defends in the 1e DMG.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e still has Vancian resource management in terms of per day abilities, just like previous editions. We don't know if there is any eterno-healing, which 3e had in the form of wands of cure light wounds. So from what we currently know, 4e supports this style of play better than 3e.

4e has Per-Encounter abilities that you never use up.

No other edition has those (with the exception of some 4e-like 3e products).

Dungeon Survival being about slow attrition in part, it is also about using up your abilities (and your equpiment, and your hp's, and your other resources).

4e also has 'second wind' mechanics for healing, and it would not be out of line to imagine that 4e has some sort of 'reserve feat' or dragon-shaman or 'reserve point' like healing process that can continually heal up to a certain amount outside of combat. While it hasn't been expressly stated as available, many parallels have been drawn. Likewise, it has been suggested that 4e characters, at low levels, have considerably more than the 'base 12' hp to begin with.

No other edition (again, with the exception of those 4e-esque 3e products) has those.

Thus, 4e supports this attrition aspect significantly less well than any other edition, where you could run out of spells, and where you could run out of hp much more easily than you appear to be able to in 4e.

Again, the point of attrition is that you use stuff up over the long term. 4e obviously has powers that you can never really use up (except temporarily), and hit points can likely be recovered much more easily over the long term.

Until the cleric casts Create Food And Water. An ability which may not exist in 4e.

You ignored my point about 'spells designed to directly counter challenges encountered in this style.' Teleport, detect evil, find traps....Create Food and Water is part and parcel of this model. This supports the idea that Dungeon Survival was an important consideration for earlier editions.

This is D&D we're talking about here? That game where PCs find thousands upon thousands of gold pieces worth of treasure, a feature Gary Gygax defends in the 1e DMG.

I was describing 'survival horror.' Because Dungeon Survival games tend to be, well, games, there is definately a payoff for being lucky enough to survive.

Note that's not 'mighty enough to win.' But 'lucky enough to survive.' The treasure isn't your reward for defeating your enemies, it's your reward for being alive when you reach the end of the dungeon. Not only that, but much of it is trapped, cursed, actually a dangerous monster in disguise, the property of an even MORE dangerous monster, too heavy to carry out of the ruins, and gone within a week on ale and whores, meaning next week you're back doing the same thing.

Survival.

Not adventure.

 

[Reynard]

4e still has Vancian resource management in terms of per day abilities, just like previous editions. We don't know if there is any eterno-healing, which 3e had in the form of wands of cure light wounds. So from what we currently know, 4e supports this style of play better than 3e.

You're not seriously suggesting that having 20% of your daily allotment of abilities being per day is equivalent to Vancian magic, are you?

And having to use wands *is* resource management.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4e has Per-Encounter abilities that you never use up.

No other edition has those (with the exception of some 4e-like 3e products).

In a typical party, half of the PCs - the fighter and rogue - have abilities that are never used up. Backed up with sufficient CLW wands, they'll both be fresh as daisies after 4 encounters a day. Or 8. Or 100.

In 4e otoh all classes have Vancian abilities, so in some respects death-by-attrition will be easier to achieve than in 3e.

4e also has 'second wind' mechanics for healing, and it would not be out of line to imagine that 4e has some sort of 'reserve feat' or dragon-shaman or 'reserve point' like healing process that can continually heal up to a certain amount outside of combat. While it hasn't been expressly stated as available, many parallels have been drawn.

That's conjecture. And even if it is possible to heal up to half, surely being on half hit points is sufficient to create tension.

Likewise, it has been suggested that 4e characters, at low levels, have considerably more than the 'base 12' hp to begin with.

Didn't someone say something about 'Dungeon Survival' being all about the slow chipping away of resources? If that's so then the more resources they begin with, the more they can be chipped away. Kind of hard to do that when a PC has only 1 hit point - entirely possible pre-3e.

You ignored my point about 'spells designed to directly counter challenges encountered in this style.' Teleport, detect evil, find traps....Create Food and Water is part and parcel of this model. This supports the idea that Dungeon Survival was an important consideration for earlier editions.

D&D's default mode of play is the dungeon bash. It's not a horror game. Yes the PCs face horrible threats but they have all the tools to deal with those threats. The dungeon is practically a second home to these guys.

Survival.

Not adventure.

Well they keep going back so it must be better than farming.

 

[Doug McCrae]

And having to use wands *is* resource management.

CLW wands are so cheap it's effectively infinite healing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In a typical party, half of the PCs - the fighter and rogue - have abilities that are never used up. Backed up with sufficient CLW wands, they'll both be fresh as daisies after 4 encounters a day. Or 8. Or 100.

In 4e otoh all classes have Vancian abilities, so in some respects death-by-attrition will be easier to achieve than in 3e.

#1: The fighter doesn't really *have* powers in any currently available edition. His ability is to inflict attrition on the enemy.

#2: A rogue's sneak attack/backstab is highly situational, making it dependent on the DM allowing such a thing to occur. And when it does, it boils down to the rogue having slightly swifter attrition on the enemy.

#3: HP and even wand charges are still a limited resource. A case could certainly be made that in 3e this was less true than in other editions, but even in 3e it was STILL limited. There are many examples of things in 4e that have been bandied about that make them significantly less so, making 4e worse than what 3e was (even if 3e was less suited to it than 1e or 2e, which I think is still true).

...even if it is possible to heal up to half, surely being on half hit points is sufficient to create tension.

You're missing the point. It's not about tension. It's about attrition. If you can easily replace what is lost, it ISN'T ATTRITION. Yeah, there can still be tension, but it's significantly different in feel -- attrition makes the game survivalist, as you struggle against an entropy. A lack of attrition signifies a more heroic game where you're really only worried about significant effects.

These aren't hard-and-fast rules, but they are a feel implied by the mechanics. I'm not saying that there can't be tension with easily available healing, but I AM saying that it's a different feel for the game, one that not everyone appreciates.

Didn't someone say something about 'Dungeon Survival' being all about the slow chipping away of resources? If that's so then the more resources they begin with, the more they can be chipped away. Kind of hard to do that when a PC has only 1 hit point - entirely possible pre-3e.

Why would they need more resources? They have hp to begin with, right? Why lengthen their 'safety net' when the fun is partially about how fast they're loosing that safety net? Some of the fun in dungeon survival is dealing with a handicap, after all.

It's not a horror game. Yes the PCs face horrible threats but they have all the tools to deal with those threats. The dungeon is practically a second home to these guys.

Nothing I said contradicts this at all. 4e seems to be taming down the dungeon survival aspect of the game, because of reasons XYZ. Some people have a lot of fun with dungeon survival games, and 4e will not be able to make them feel totally at home.

What part of that do you disagree with?

Is it that 4e is taming down dungeon survival aspects? I reference hardier 1st level characters, endlessly renewing resources, the reduction of save or die and save or suck effects (including traps and "gotcha monsters") and more easily accessible healing as evidence that they are.

Is it that 4e will be able to make dungeon survival fans feel at home? If so, reference parts of 4e that represent true (not temporary) attrition, and sudden shocking doom for me.

And are any of those disagreements related at all to your claim that no edition of D&D pays attention to Dungeon Survival? Or have you abandoned that line of reasoning?

 

[Raven Crowking]

What part of that do you disagree with?

Is it that 4e is taming down dungeon survival aspects? I reference hardier 1st level characters, endlessly renewing resources, the reduction of save or die and save or suck effects (including traps and "gotcha monsters") and more easily accessible healing as evidence that they are.

Is it that 4e will be able to make dungeon survival fans feel at home? If so, reference parts of 4e that represent true (not temporary) attrition, and sudden shocking doom for me.

And are any of those disagreements related at all to your claim that no edition of D&D pays attention to Dungeon Survival? Or have you abandoned that line of reasoning?

The most unexpected result of the announcement of 4e is that I find myself agreeing with you more and more often.......


RC

 

[Hussar]

Ok, KM, let's assume for a second that you're right and "Dungeon Survival" is off the table.

Could you point me towards any published Dungeon Survival modules? Other than maybe Tomb of Horrors, is there any? If dungeon survival as you've described was a prevalent style of play, wouldn't we see support for it? Even back in the day, I can't really think of any modules that play out that way.

What wandering monsters do, though, is prevent PCs from easily resting whereever they like, and from easily knowing how much "oomph" they need to hold on to before retreating. From my point of view (as player or DM) these things increase the fun. But they are not consistent with a "15-minute adventuring day" playstyle.

No, they really don't. For one, it's far too easy to get around wandering monsters to rest. Most dungeons have secret doors. Go inside, spike the door shut and rest for 8 hours. Poof, end of problem. Wandering monsters were generally a complete waste of time. The DM couldn't be bothered rolling them because they were boring.

Ooh, yay, a meaningless encounter, completely underpowered, that results in no rewards. Gimme more of that.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Is it that 4e is taming down dungeon survival aspects? I reference hardier 1st level characters, endlessly renewing resources, the reduction of save or die and save or suck effects (including traps and "gotcha monsters") and more easily accessible healing as evidence that they are.

I agree with this as long as we recognise a difference between taming and removing. Second wind is a per day ability. The high end abilities are all per day abilities. This means there is attrition.

We don't know whether the per encounter / at will abilities can affect healing. The one mention of the heal skill says 'Tabitha gave Atticus the ability to use one of his healing reserves' giving us NO information on how big Atticus' reserves are or whether they are per day or per encounter.

Save or die spells don't create a dungeon survival aspect - it's the whittling down of PROTECTIONS against save or die that create a dungeon survival aspect. Changing it to Save or suck doesn't change this. If you get poisoned by something that petrifies you it doesn't matter if it's instantaneous or over 5 rounds if you have no remaining protection against poison - it just means the petrified character has a chance for some last words.

If the rules allow characters to use per encounter abilities to heal back up to full then yes Dungeon Survival is dead. But if per encounter abilities don't allow healing beyond what you started the encounter at then Dungeon Survival is still alive and well (although tamed slightly)

Until we know for certain we can't say one way or the other (but we're perfectly entitled to state our opinions)