Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Xath]

I'm surprised at the number of obtuse martyrs on here. Try reading it again without the victim card. Either that or I can get my pliers and help you off the cross.

And you're done. I'll advise you to go back and read the rules of ENworld before posting anything else. You will no longer be able to post in this thread.

To everyone else, I'll remind you of ENworld's civility rules. If you can't express your opinions without insulting others, don't express them.

- Xath

 

[Gimby]

Does anyone have a serious counter-argument beyond some kneejerk "Don't tell me how to play man!" blather?

Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements? Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third. Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.

In this edition the fantastical elements are focused on the internal abilities of the characters themselves rather than their magic toys. Even then, there are a decent number of highly fantastical items that seem to be being ignored - even something as humble as the Everlasting Provisions (level 4, 840gp) is fantasitcal enough for something similar to be the focus of several Brothers Grimm tales.

There are very few people asking for the complete removal of fantastical elements, but there does reach a stage where some people feel that what they are getting isn't fantastical, its gonzo. That line will be in a different place for everyone, its just it seems to have been drawn a little lower this time out.

One side point:

Compare this: "I am Arthur, King of Britain, and here be Excalibur that I won from the ancient stone with my own hand."

With this: "I am Thaddeus and here is my +3 longsword that I bought at a discount! It was an upgrade from my old +2 short sword! When I get enough experience I'll sell this sword too and buy me a +4 Bastard! Huzzah!"

It should be noted that the second is precisely what Ffahrd and the Grey Mouser do - the names for their weapons stay the same but the actual object changes on a frequent basis.

 

[Jack7]

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players. That's something that keeps getting missed.

But as to whether or not a fella, or a team, becomes a mere set of statistics, that depends upon them. Not you. How clever, tough, and creative they are. You've got to let your players grow up, take real risks, be real heroes. The DM can't plot out heroism on a graph, and just because a player chooses a Paragon path or an Epic destiny doesn't mean there's anything epic about him, or that he'll ever do one truly heroic thing in his life. It's how a man behaves in the heat of the fire, not how he behaves in the balanced and comforting waters of the hot springs that makes the difference between a hero and a guy sporting a longknife and a funny name.

And of course not every fight is heroic. As I said. Sometimes you're just doing your job. But let them fight the dragon too, the real monster. The thing they know can kill them, the thing that will kill them unless they do their very, very best. How sad, that even in a game, where little is really risked (unless you count the ideals that men hold most true in their own hearts) the idea must be held in the back of the mind, "you know, if it weren't for the statistics, I'd have been a real hero?" Out of the womb of statistics, how many people ever grow a hero? Maybe, just maybe, you don't grow a hero by following the odds, maybe, just maybe, you grow a hero by forgetting the odds.

But as to whether they can do it, and they can if they really try, they employ techniques that assure they do as much as they can the right way, and assure the enemy makes as many mistakes as they can encourage him to make in the meantime. They don't just fight hard, and valiantly, and with determination. They also fight with cleverness, craftily, and with purpose. Anything can be killed if you go about it the right way. Including the idea that the fight must be fair, just because it seems impossible.

What I'm saying is that even in a game you can't grow real heroes out artificial mechanics and pre-plotted career paths. Just like you can't grow magic out of the number of pluses and minuses you employ.

You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.

Be that kind of fellow and sooner or later you'll become heroic. Be concerned about the odds and the balance and and whether you're man enough for the risk and you'll end up distinguished merely by your statistical limitations.

 

[FireLance]

I think the two biggest misconceptions about balance (with repsect to PCs vs encounters, anyway) are:
1. The PCs always win a balanced encounter.
2. The PCs always have balanced encounters.

The PCs may be likely to win a balanced encounter, but as with any game of skill and chance, the players may make tactical mistakes and the dice may not always go their way. Even if the PCs have a 90% chance of winning a "balanced" encounter and only ever fight "balanced" encounters, that means about one in ten encounters will end in defeat.

Furthermore, whether or not the PCs will have balanced encounters is entirely up to the DM in a non-sandbox game. In addition, encounter difficulty is not a binary "balanced"/"unbalanced" switch. There is a continuum of encounter difficulty, from encounters that the PCs are almost certain to win, to encounters where they have an better than average chance of victory, to encounters which could go either way, to encounters that the PCs would do well to run away as fast and as far as they can.

Encounter balance is descriptive, not prescriptive.

So in the actual game, how do you run #2?

Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.

If you use monsters that are genuinely stronger than the PCs, like the criminal in your story, how often does it end like your story, and how often does it end with the heroes making a valiant effort, but in vain?

In a story, the author chooses whatever the outcome he wants, however unlikely. In a dice-based game, the outcomes will be dictated by statistics. Heroes facing truly unlikely odds will be truly unlikely to succeed.

From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what makes them heroes.

However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten. In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose.

Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the actual chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.

As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.

 

[FireLance]

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players. That's something that keeps getting missed.

I'll refine this slightly based on my gaming philosophy: In a non-sandbox game, it's the job of the DM to present the players with challenges that they have a decent chance of overcoming. It is the job of the players to actually beat them.

A challenge is not necessarily a combat encounter, though. The PCs may encounter creatures and NPCs that they have no realistic chance of beating in combat. In such cases, part of the challenge may be for the players to realize that they are outclassed (assuming they were attacked, or were silly enough to initiate hostilities in the first place), and the remainder may be for the players to negotiate, run, or otherwise get themselves out of the situation.

In addition, a challenge, even a "balanced" challenge, does not need to be easy. I expect my players to fight cleverly when in battle, and to use their intelligence, creativity and imagination in non-combat challenges. As a DM, I like to use opponents clever and ruthless enough to exploit any and every tactical error they make.

You have to let people risk the dangerous thing, do the hard thing, actually be heroic. You can't write heroism into the script, and you can't write it into a person with mere words and attribute scores and character powers. It comes when a fella is far less concerned with whether his fight is "fair and balanced or not," and instead is far more concerned with what he's fighting for, not who he's fighting against.

This I agree with 100%. The numbers are there just to make sure that the PCs have a reasonable chance of success - if they do the right things.

 

[jasin]

It ain't the job of the DM to do this Jas. It's the job of the players.

To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?

As much as it's a central conceit of the game to pretend otherwise, D&D is rigged in the PCs' favour, either through statistics or through fudging. It's not something you want on the surface of the players minds because it detracts from the experience, but when talking game design, it's denial to pretend that the PCs should (or can!) be expected to face unfavourable odds and win with regularity.

All the rousing speeches about forgetting the odds and fighting for what's right and growing out your fears don't change the fact that if you need 20 on a d20 to defeat the villain, the villain defeats you in 19 games out of 20.

Naturally, things like clever tactics, teamwork, equipment all affect the odds, but if we're talking game design, they should already be accounted for. If you need a 20, but have +2 from flanking, +5 from a magic sword, +2 from your ally aiding you, and +4 from using your Defeat Villain 1/day ability, that's actually called "needing a 7", and it's not heroically going forward in face of overwhelming odds.

 

[jasin]

Put them in a situation where they face a hard encounter; according to the DMG, one of Level+2 to Level+4.

So you have 5 Nth-level PCs fighting five 5 (N+2)th-level villains and think "wow, these guys are really outclassed!" and they still manage to win.

But this is because 4E, using different notations for PCs and monsters, can nicely camouflage what the numbers really mean. And what they really mean is not much different from 3E, where a "hard encounter" was actually a reasonably fair fight: EL = level + 4, facing an equal number of equally strong folks.

Similarly, in 4E encounter level = party level doesn't mean "this is an even match". It means "this is an appropriate encounter, which means the monsters are significantly outclassed". Harder encounters just mean the monsters are less outclassed than usual.

Of course, you already knew that.

From a certain perspective, facing truly unlikely odds and actually succeeding is what makes them heroes.

However, you've put your finger on the key difference betwen a game and a narrative. In a narrative, last, desperate, one in a million chances might come up nine times out of ten. In a game, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times, the PCs lose.

Exactly.

Some games offset this by giving the players narrative tools which make that one in a million chance more likely to come up: in D&D, these include action points, second wind, daily abilities, etc. However, this shifts the actual chances of the PCs' victory back to something closer to 50-50, which by the previous definition no longer makes them heroes.

Exactly.

As for me, I base my definition of heroism not on beating the odds, but on doing the right thing. In my games, you can be a hero by doing the right thing even if you have an 80% chance of success. If the PCs are in the game long enough, the dice will make them fail often enough anyway.

And again, exactly.

 

[Andor]

Because different people like different kinds of fantastical elements? Pan's Labyrinth is one kind of fantasy, The Wizard of Oz is a different one, Lord of the Rings would be a third. Elements that make sense in one are out of place in another.

True. But that's more a matter of genre and suspension of disbelief. D&D has always tended towards the "Throw the Encyclopeadia of Mythology into the blender and hit frappe." end of the spectum but there is plenty of wiggle room. I do think that if on seeing an Apparatus of Kaliwash the D&D players reaction should be "Cool!" not "Wouldn't it have been more efficient to model a magical mecha submarine on a Mantis Shrimp?"

 

[Jack7]

To do what? To consistently roll better than 10.5 on a d20?

I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between a Hero and a calculator. Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.

No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds. He grows brave through the exercise of danger, and risk. And no manipulations of probability, or improbability, can change that fact.

But, just for sake of argument, let's redefine the game hero. Let me rephrase the problem by proposing a "more pragmatic and modern definition of in-game heroism": The Hero is that man who upon a sufficient calculation of all available data concerning the statistical probability of success for any given venture, makes a well-considered determination of what is an acceptable level of personal risk and thereby concludes whether he will undertake, or avoid said venture, as a course of profitable enterprise independent of all other possible considerations, such as aspects of necessity or superfluidity, right and wrong, etc.


I'm not really sure what you'd grow with such a set of heroic parameters Jas, but I'm pretty sure it could calculate actuary tables in its head like a real champ. You could write-up something like Conan the Forensic Accountant, or Herakles of the Seven Statistical Labors. (By the way, can you write game heroes like that off on your taxes? It seems like there oughtta be a clause covering that.)

But in all seriousness, whereas I would always encourage in-game cleverness and shrewdness, as well as the rational analysis of risk, I would never encourage anything even remotely resembling the idea that you carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude.

 

[malraux]

Personally, when I want a game in which everything is mystical, magical, and near incomprehensible, where the heroes both give of themselves and have no idea if they will succeed, and statistics and numbers are of little comfort to the player, I play Cthulhu.