Why is it so important?

[Merlion]

A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...



I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.

Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.

And so far, I see no reason to foresee the proposed changes taking that away (not that you were necessarily saying they would.)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And so far, I see no reason to foresee the proposed changes taking that away (not that you were necessarily saying they would.)

True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like Die Hard and look like they just got out of bed.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...



I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.

Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.

If I had players like that, I may have a different attitude regarding the proposed changes (maybe not, but I'd be looking at them through a different lense).

The majority of my players aren't in it for the challenge, however, so much as for other reasons. I have a couple that want to be really challenged and none of them want me to just say, "you win". So, I usually give a bunch of "token challenges," meant to keep them busy (and entertain them, of course) and then drop in a real challenge every session or two. The "token challenges" are occasionally more difficult than anticipated, but are meant to be easily handled. The real challenges are the ones that can sidetrack a campaign, kill a character or perhaps even cause a TPK.

So, it really does depend on what you are looking for in a game. The next edition of D&D appears to be catering to my players, so it will probably make my transition very easy. I'll cross my fingers that this is the case...

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like Die Hard and look like they just got out of bed.

Yeah, it does seem that with D&D, it's up to the players to portray their characters as having the "just got my ass kicked, but prevailed"-look, since the mechanics aren't going to do it for them.

 

[Rakin]

Bah, why would I want to sit around a table pretending to play while one guy just manipulates the story so winning without death is going to be guaranteed?

Might as well just sit around the table while someone reads a fantasy novel to the players and randomly roll dice.

How incredibly boring! Where's the sense of danger? Where's the fear?

(Just so you know I used to run a game like this when I used to play 3.5, and it was boring! )

So! The fun in that sort of playing comes learning mechanics? Oh! And is that why in the new D&D coming out everyone just argues mechanics and why they're getting mad that their 20th level fighter/mage/rogue won't be able to do crazy spinning death kicks of doom with fireballs coming from their feet because the rules say they're not allowed to anymore?

 

[Merlion]

True, I didn't...mostly because I have the impression that D&D isn't the best game to simulate that kind of ending anyway, to be honest, mostly because in terms of game-effect, wounds and spellcasting don't have any effect on the efficiency of the character, only the combat endurance (how long he can kick ass and take names in combat), so as far as D&D is concerned, the characters might as well come out of something like Die Hard and look like they just got out of bed.

But I have still seen what you describe take place many times because..

Yeah, it does seem that with D&D, it's up to the players to portray their characters as having the "just got my ass kicked, but prevailed"-look, since the mechanics aren't going to do it for them.

The players did this. This is one of the areas that, while I wouldnt mind mechanics reflecting it, its not necessary. Its linked to the concept of difficulty I was trying to get gizmo to understand. The characters, and their players, know how much effort, thought, power and possibly injury they put into overcoming a challenge. And the changes to the rules arent going to take any of that away.

 

[Rel]

A quote from John Wick, taken from the L5R GM's Screen booklet, that always reminds me what "fun" is about in roleplaying games...



I can't generalize it as John Wick did, but a LOT of the players I played with fit into that description, and the biggest fun was had in adventures where exactly that happened...the characters beat the odds and came out heroes, crawling, but alive.

Seeing the happy grins at the end of such a session, that's what fun is about in an RPG.

This maps very closely to my experience. The games where it looks like they PC's are going to lose and then, by inspiration, genius or just plain luck, they pull it out of the fire and win, are the ones we all remember and talk about years later.

I don't aim for that sort of experience every session. More often than not I set things up so that the PC's will probably win unless they are particularly uninspired, foolish or just plain unlucky. But sometimes those things happen and those wind up as memorable sessions too.

When the players watch their PC's cheat death, the excitement just takes over and suddenly they are jumping out of their chairs and high fiving each other. A bunch of grown-ass men clapping and cheering because their imaginary barbarian rolled a 20 on some piece of plastic. It's magical. However I can't get that sort of tension if the players don't believe it is possible for them to fail and to die.

As for the story and whether it goes on, as folks more eloquent than I have said, "The story is not what the GM and players plan to happen. The story is what retrospectively took place during the course of the campaign." Even if that story involved a key PC dying in a fight that you thought would be easy or a TPK in a fight you thought would be tough but not impossible, THAT is the story as far as I'm concerned.

On that note, I'll say one final thing: I've had as many or more plotlines derailed by character successes than by their failures or deaths. That recurring bad guy who was going to get away? Well I forgot the the Wizard had that scroll of Web, didn't I. The sinister plot that the Evil Cultist was plotting? Who knew he was going to roll a natural 1 on his Save vs. Detect Thoughts? They would of course need to go on the quest for the Dragon Slaying Sword...except that the Barbarian charged up there and did 76 points of damage in one swing on that crit. In all cases you just roll with those punches and continue with the game. It's no different when the PC's suffer setbacks in my opinion.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Bah, why would I want to sit around a table pretending to play while one guy just manipulates the story so winning without death is going to be guaranteed?

Might as well just sit around the table while someone reads a fantasy novel to the players and randomly roll dice.

How incredibly boring! Where's the sense of danger? Where's the fear?

(Just so you know I used to run a game like this when I used to play 3.5, and it was boring! )

So! The fun in that sort of playing comes learning mechanics? Oh! And is that why in the new D&D coming out everyone just argues mechanics and why they're getting mad that their 20th level fighter/mage/rogue won't be able to do crazy spinning death kicks of doom with fireballs coming from their feet because the rules say they're not allowed to anymore?

Speaking for myself, I've never guaranteed anything. Even my "token challenges" can be very deadly if the players make the wrong decisions.

As far as answering your question, you obviously wouldn't want to play in a game that I have planned for my normal players. My players ask to be railroaded. My players want to be challenged only some of the time. My players can handle being beaten down, but don't want to die (sometimes, that is an unfortunate side-effect of adventuring that even I won't protect them from). My players wouldn't be a fit for you, at all.

With all of that said, it is still possible that both styles of play can be accomodated by the new rules, but it does seem that my style will be easier to do.

EDIT: I would like to add that when my players come crawling out of the rubble on their bellies, barely snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, they are happy. If they see that I've planned this sort of game, they do not react well (I suppose that they only want me to "mostly railroad them" and "somewhat challenge them" *shrug*). This is why I only provide such "real challenges" only once every couple sessions (and the real tough ones even less often). I just don't rely on resource depletion as a way to ramp up the challenge, because resource depletion usually has a negative effect on my games (to tie it back into this thread).

 

[Merlion]

But even in this example resource management does come into play...

Fighting an enemy you can kill in a single swordstroke is easy

Fighting 4 such enemies is only less easy if you have to sacrifice something(hp's/spells/etc.) to do it otherwise it is no harder than the above encounter, just takes more dice rolls.

Fighting 2 enemies that take 3-4 attks to kill is again only less easy in how they affect your resources, if it's neligible then it is again as easy as encounter one and just takes longer to resolve.

Now fighting an enemy that is immune to all but your most powerful forms of attack. Or fighting an enemy which is relatively vulnerable to your attacks, but who has an attack that will paralyse or kill you out right.

Both of these examples take away your at-will or per encounter resources(either by being immune to anything but your most powerful or paralysing you) or take all your resources by auto-killing you. thus yes it is more difficult than the first. Yet we again went from breeze encounter(with varying lengths) to a supreme danger situation. Either everything has to be able to neutralize your resources in one encounter or you will beat it with no consequences since they will recharge.

But I am not solely talking about mechanics. And from the mechanical aspect that I am aproaching, the fact that you used the resources is what I am talking about, wether they get replenished or not.

It had consquences in the moment. If you use a per encounter ability, you can't use it again that encounter. So if it doesnt end the fight, you have one less resource to continue using during that fight.

But my real point is levels of difficulty.

A Bugbear is harder to defeat than a kobold.

A hill giant is harder to defeat than a bugbear.

An adult red dragon is harder to defeat than a hill giant.

And of course some enemies may be both harder to defeat, and more likely to defeat or cripple you.

Difficulty levels exist between very easy and very hard. There is in between...I'm not even talking about resource wise, I'm talking effort and/or risk wise.

 

[Rakin]

Speaking for myself, I've never guaranteed anything. Even my "token challenges" can be very deadly if the players make the wrong decisions.

As far as answering your question, you obviously wouldn't want to play in a game that I have planned for my normal players. My players ask to be railroaded. My players want to be challenged only some of the time. My players can handle being beaten down, but don't want to die (sometimes, that is an unfortunate side-effect of adventuring that even I won't protect them from). My players wouldn't be a fit for you, at all.

With all of that said, it is still possible that both styles of play can be accomodated by the new rules, but it does seem that my style will be easier to do.

EDIT: I would like to add that when my players come crawling out of the rubble on their bellies, barely snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, they are happy. If they see that I've planned this sort of game, they do not react well (I suppose that they only want me to "mostly railroad them" and "somewhat challenge them" *shrug*). This is why I only provide such "real challenges" only once every couple sessions (and the real tough ones even less often). I just don't rely on resource depletion as a way to ramp up the challenge, because resource depletion usually has a negative effect on my games (to tie it back into this thread).

I guess you gotta apeal to the masses. Nothing wrong with that.