Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Sir Brennen]

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 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.

I didn't see anywhere that jasin was implying that such detailed, mathematical analysis is a desired approach to play.

I think it's more like this: a firefighter reasonably fits the image of a hero... going into dangerous situations to aid others. And, much like a D&D adventurer, he does it on a regular basis. However, do you think they do so without rigorous training, adequate preparation and taking every precaution they can to minimize the risk to themselves even as they enter a burning building? Will they normally do things where the odds don't favor them? Of course not. Does this make them less heroic? I think not.

So even in real life, heroes will do things to try and make sure the odds are in their favor as much as possible.

Similarly, as PCs face danger on a routine basis, they of course will do things which minimize risk and perform "manipulations of probability" by doing things which shift the dice roll in their favor. Just the basic knowledge each player has that each +1 gives you a 5% better chance to succeed and trying to get those bonuses doesn't mean they're "carefully balance your way into cautious heroism across the tightrope of mathematical certitude."

Just like the heroes of fiction will try to have better equipment, keep their skills honed and exercise beneficial tactical maneuvers in combat, so do D&D players. It's just that the fact that it's a game means there's math involved to reflect those things the heroes of fiction do.

However, with heroes of fiction, there is no real risk! They can succeed at amazing and impossible things because the author has already predetermined that they will do so. They cannot fail unless the author wants them to.

This is not true in a D&D game, which is co-authored by DM and players, because it is a game, which is dependent on the roll of a die to determine the outcome of actions, and through cumulative action results, an entire challenge. You can't expect PCs to "act like heroes" and continually take on situations where the odds are against them, because, unlike heroes of fiction, the statistical odds are actually against them. So they won't end up heroes, they'll just end up dead. No amount of florid prose regarding what heroism is "really" about will change that.

So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.

 

[Gimby]

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.

However, in the context of the game, fortune does not favour the bold. You can be as bold as you like and it won't make your dice roll higher. You can make the game favour the bold through fiat or by inbuilt bonusses if you like, but these can be looked at statistically.

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.

Here, I think we are getting to the heart of your issue. There is a clear difference between the risk as perceived by the player and that perceived by the character. The character is willing to stride into the jaws of hell armed only with their wits and their trusty blade. The player on the other hand, is aware of the exact capabilities of the character and can make the kind of cost/benefit analysis that you describe. The character can do things which are risky and unlikely in context of the gameworld, which are reliable in terms of the rules mechanics.

An example of this would be using Wushu on the US Marshal example earlier in the thread - depending on how the encounter is set up, its possible that in either case the risk of actual failure is zero. However, it is possible in the context of the game rules to narrate either of those outcomes, depending on the desires of the players. Does that stop the second case being heroic, even though the narrative generated is exactly the same?

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.

Indeed, and I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that characters should be timidly edging their way along that tightrope. Characters should (have the choice to, if appropriate to their characterisation) be bold and brave. Players on the other hand, may like not having to continually having to roll up new characters because the dice do not favour the bold.

 

[billd91]

So, to create the experience of having your PC be more like heroes of fiction, they have to have a reasonable chance of success, to be able to continue the story. There's a certain amount of trust on the part of the players that the DM will make this the case. Not to make victory certain, or eliminate all risk, as it is in the fiction you seem to be basing your heroic ideal on, but at least challenging and entertaining.

I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.

 

[Lacyon]

Because Fortune favors the Bold, but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.

A game designed such that fortune to actually favors the bold should be right up your alley.

 

[jasin]

I'm saying there is a fundamental difference between a Hero and a calculator.

And I'm saying there's a fundamental difference between the mindset of a hero, and the mindset of a designer of a framework which is to rely on randomization and expected to produce stories which we characterize as heroic.

Because Fortune favors the Bold,

I don't think that adage is true in the sense in which you think it's true.

but timidity, not chance, is the father of the impossible.

You're starting to sound like Sphinx from Mystery Men.

No man grows brave through practice of statistics, and comforting assurances of favorable odds.

No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.

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.

You're starting to sound like... well, pretty much anyone from Vance.

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.)

I, on the other hand, have played in games where the odds were genuinely against the PCs and there was no fudging. Some of it has been fun, and there were even rare moments of genuine heroism, but mostly we've written up something like the Assassin Who Fell Down the Stairs and Was Paralyzed For Life, the Monk Who Couldn't Punch Through Plate Armour, the Battle-Priest Who Tripped On His Own Chainmail, and the Few Good Men Who Got Eaten By a Random Encounter Giant Slug.

Consistently going against the odds results in consistent failure, and consistent failure isn't what's associated in most people's minds with heroism. It's associated with lack of wisdom and lack of competence.

But in all seriousness,

Ah, that was humour? I mistook it for snideness.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I'd qualify this a bit. They need to have a reasonable chance for success or at least a reasonable chance to determine that they have no reasonable chance so that they can make the decision to cast the die and cross the Rubicon or prepare for confrontation on a later date.

Oh, absolutely. And being able to determine if the odds are against them either relies on players being familiar enough with the statistics of the threat to decide it's out of their league or some narrative clues from the DM that indicate they might want to reconsider charging in.

Having encounters that the PCs have to figure out in the middle of combat that they're in over their heads (in the instance where the DM knew this going in) aren't cool to me, though. Usually a PC has to go down for that understanding to sink in, and might not be recoverable if the rest of the group runs. Also, as a game, combat is more fun than running away, so often players will continue to fight even when they shouldn't.

There's a few reasons for this. Again, unless the DM is giving clues that they are actually losing, they may not realize they are since they have no idea what the opponents' hit points or unused capabilities are. They may also not relish the idea of having to do a tough fight over again. And there's the psychological concept of "sunk cost", where one is reluctant to let go of an endeavor that they've already expended resources on. And, since it is a game, many times players, especially newer ones, may not realize that a situation where they have to run away from combat would ever come up unless the DM has set that expectation before hand.

 

[Andor]

No man grows brave through ignorance of statistics either.

"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo

 

[billd91]

"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo

I die a little every time some fanboy quotes this when you tell him "That plan will never work. The odds are stacked against you." It's especially appalling when they say it playing poker, only to lose big... which is practically inevitable whenever you say that but are not Han Solo.

 

[nightwyrm]

In fiction, something that has a million to one chance of success will always succeed. This is because everything is determined by the writer. Hot blood and courage can alter the laws of physics and the heroes can win even with 0% chance of success. Trying to apply this to real life games where random chance actually means something and You Fail Statistics Forever.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Q wrote an excellent article that listed what was available (i.e., what was in the module), but it didn't provide anything in the way of research re: how "available" the treasure actually was (i.e., what was required to actually get the listed treasure).

I offered some very specific guidelines about what would demonstrate me wrong. Time required to search is extremely simple to determine.

It isn't about who "played the game right".


RC

This is actually false:

Originally Posted by Quasqueton
I’ve read this assertion before, but I haven’t seen this in the adventure modules I’ve gone through. The vast majority of treasure is not hidden. And that treasure that is hidden, is not much, and only rarely “ridiculously” or “devilishly” (as someone else said) well hidden.

The Moathouse's "hidden" treasure:

1- in the belly of a giant frog = a 100gp gem

2- "the brigands have buried a chest. . . Three turns of digging" = 265gp value, +1 arrows (x4)

3- "in the litter of its nesting" = 850gp value

4- In a lone wall cresset, a "nondescript torch stub is a silver baton" = 30gp value

5- "[The giant lizard] has previously swallowed a shield +1, easily found if appropriate actions are taken after the battle." = +1 shield

6- "hidden behind a loose stone" = 500gp value

7- "intermixed with the old carpeting and rags of [the ogre's] bedding" = elven cloak

8- in a pool of water, under a skull = a pin worth a total of 2,000gp

9- in the "mess" of a ghoul nest = 40gp value, 1 potion, 1 scroll

10- "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber = 15,000gp piece of jewelry [Is this actually "hidden", in the context of this discussion? Just in a cabinet.]

Total of 3,785 gp value (out of 30,938gp) not immediately or obviously discoverable. Plus a 15,000gp piece of jewelry "hidden in a cabinet" in the BBEG's chamber, which "If seriously threatened, Lareth will offer all his non-magical treasures---jewelry, coins, and all else---as ransom for his life."

Quasqueton

From This Thread

The myth that treasure was well hidden has been well and truly disproved already. TEN PERCENT of the treasure is not readily available. One has to wonder at Raven Crowking's assertion that his players regularly only find 25 % of the treasure in an adventure.