Why is it so important?

[IanArgent]

I honestly have never seen a D&D game where a PC got killed without any decision-making that led there. I am sure that there are DMs who roll on the Wandering Damage chart, or who make it impossible to gain enough information to at least guess what a reasonable course of action might be. I just think that those are DM problems, not system problems.

YMMV.


RC

Oddly enough - I had very close to this happen to me in a WHFRP session - lost a character despite doing everything right because I couldn't roll above a 15 or so on percentile dice. Got killed by a necromancer that I only needed to hit once to disrupt his spell. (The rest of the party was being held off by his undead goons).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then what sort of information would you need to know?

The mechanics.

Because the events in the encounter included actions which were of mechanical interest, clearly. On every single round, the characters made meaningful choices which impacted (in some cases positively, in some cases negatively) the outcome of the encounter due to changes in the mechanical states of themselves and their allies and enemies.

I believe that Gizmo33 wanted an actual example using that setup that demonstrates how your response might look in practice. Therefore, I don't call this an answer (Shilsen, make of that what you will), but rather another evasion of the question.

Because it's a strawman.

How so? If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done. The more clear the win is, the more clear an example of how it is still mechanically interesting will be.

I provided an example where the PCs were in little danger of actually being killed (though they could be defeated and hurt) and where there was no appreciable change in the mechanical capabilities after the fight in relation to the way they were before it, and yet the encounter itself was of great mechanical interest.

Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.

Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the excitement was mechanical, rather than story-based, because you haven't provided the mechanics of the encounter.

I've now answered those questions again. Will you answer mine?

You have evaded those questions again, but I will nonetheless be happy to answer yours if you provide the mechanics of the encounter.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oddly enough - I had very close to this happen to me in a WHFRP session - lost a character despite doing everything right because I couldn't roll above a 15 or so on percentile dice. Got killed by a necromancer that I only needed to hit once to disrupt his spell. (The rest of the party was being held off by his undead goons).

You knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis. That is not the fault of the dice.

If, in fact, you knew that there was a chance of failure, you apparently knew roughly what that chance was, and you made a decision on that basis, yet regardless of the roll your result was predetermined I would see a real problem with the game. If the DM decides that you live anyway, it invalidates the choice that you made by removing much of the context and all of the consequence of that choice. This would make me quit the game (politely). Again, though, not the fault of the dice.

 

[Jackelope King]

The mechanics.



I believe that Gizmo33 wanted an actual example using that setup that demonstrates how your response might look in practice. Therefore, I don't call this an answer (Shilsen, make of that what you will), but rather another evasion of the question.



How so? If it is possible to make a "clear win" encounter one in which there is mechanical interest, then this would make it more clear how such a thing could be done. The more clear the win is, the more clear an example of how it is still mechanically interesting will be.



Yet, throughout this discussion, Gizmo33 and I have been clear that we agree with you that a win/lose scenario can be exciting. That tells us nothing about whether or not a situation where you clearly cannot lose can be exciting.

Moreover, you have yet to demonstrate that the excitement was mechanical, rather than story-based, because you haven't provided the mechanics of the encounter.



You have evaded those questions again, but I will nonetheless be happy to answer yours if you provide the mechanics of the encounter.

RC

So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?

No, I am asking you to provide the mechanics of the encounter. IOW, simply transcribe your encounter notes (with stats) or cut & paste them if you work on your computer. We shouldn't need to see a round-by-round to determine the level of mechanical interest.

EDIT: Unless you are contending that you cannot determine whether or not an encounter is mechanically interesting on the basis of such data?

RC

 

[Mallus]

So you'd like me to give you a round-for-round report of the battle, with the actions of every single participant, their options at each point, and what effects they had on gameplay? Do you realize what you're asking for?

I think he's asking you to argue the way he does, which would be Timecube-style.

Or he's just trying to win the point by exhausting you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think he's asking you to argue the way he does, which would be Timecube-style.

What is it with you and this timecube stuff anyway? Are you planning on releasing the d20 guide to timecubes?

 

[Mallus]

What is it with you and this timecube stuff anyway?

It's my idea of humor. Might not be anyone else's.

edit: there already is a timecube rpg.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's my idea of humor. Might not be anyone else's.

edit: there already is a timecube rpg.

I laughed.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There. Now you can do so something wizardy every round, and you are absolutely equal to a fighter of the same level.

Hah - in fact, I'm a fighter with a fluff change. I don't want to do "fightery" things. I want to do "wizardly" things. And while unlimited shots of eldritch energy is an option, it should not be the only option.

Moreover, we've largely got that in 3.5.

It's called the Warlock, and it works pretty well (though, from reports from others, I understand that it gets a little boring in the higher levels because it's largely limited to Eldritch Blasts; he's too close to the Fighter with a Fluff Change).

In 4E, I'd like them to take what they learned from the Warlock and the Bo9S and SWSE and apply it to the core rules. I'd like them to take the lessons from the Warlock and the Crusader and the Jedi and apply them to the Wizard.