D&D 4E will 4e be "gamisticly correct" ?

[Melan]

This is a problematic analogy, since chess is a two-player game, and once somebody loses, the session ends. In roleplaying games, losses are at best a temporary delay as new characters are brought in or slain ones raised. A campaign works perfectly well with a rotating cast - as long as there are survivors to keep it moving on the same track and new candidates to pick up the flame.

But if we stay with chess, we could imagine a variant where the figures were only temporarily removed - say, put back in their starting positions three turns after getting knocked off the table. The game would go on longer, no doubt - but a lot of the thrill would be lost in the process.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

It certainly would seem like the best way to ensure fun would be to remove all the possibilities of failure.

Removing as many of the boring ways to fail as possible is a good start. The random and arbitrary ways must be the first to go. If I fail because of my own decisions I'll accept it and move on. If I fail because of a random roll of the dice I guess I'll accept that too but it won't feel like I really did anything to deserve failing, which makes it a boring way to fail. If I win by pure luck or a random roll I don't feel like it's much cause for celebration either. "Yay, random chance saved the day again! WOOoo... Meh."

There is enough random factors involved in the game already that we don't need more of the kind that can end a game prematurely with a single roll.

 

[Melan]

Eh, it usually the player's decision to subject himself to random rolls, not the dreaded "DM fiat". Taking part in dangerous adventures should have consequences - some unforeseen.

 

[Darkness]

Ok, mods. Do your duty. At least I said it.

Next time, please 'say it' without insulting other users. Take 3 days off and try to cool down a little.

If you have any questions or comments, e-mail me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I've seen PCs die before their own initiative came up in the encounter and without getting to roll a single die. I have to say that does kind of suck. And, that's even without surprise.

 

[delericho]

1) balance above all. This is the D&D religion since 3e : everything should be balanced, no class nor race should be more powerful than another. The problem is that this is somewhat impossible

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean we should simply ignore balance, but rather that instead of seeking "absolute balance" the game should seek "reasonable balance". In general, it really does make for a better game.

2) fun above all. What should the rules do ? Help you describe a world and the lives and adventures of your characters, or allow you to play some abstract tactic game ? I would say both, but the first part is more important. What is the worst : a game where you can lose a fight with one save, or a game where Circea the sorceress is unable to polymorph her victims into pigs, because, well, beeing pigised is "not fun" ?

I agree with this somewhat. Removing the lose conditions from the game stems from a misunderstanding of what fun is in the longer term. If there's no chance of failure then there's no excitement, no thrill, and ultimately it all pales into insignificance. I'm pretty sure there are a number of stories where the protagonist is cursed to instantly receive anything he wishes for, said protagonist becoming terribly miserable because he winds up bored.

What about coup de grâce ? A dagger in your throat while you were sleeping is not a fun way to die....

No, it's really not. A DM who pulls that sort of thing will find himself without players in short order. However, that's not a rule change that's needed - it's a DM in need of re-education.

We know there won't be death from massive damage (not fun ! beeing bite by a dire T-rex and dying because of a single missed fort save is not fun, you should survivre to three or four bites...)

The thing about the massive damage rules is that they were utterly redundant. By the time a character could survive a single hit for 50 damage, passing a DC 15 Fort save was essentially trivial. The rule served no useful purpose, and is rightly being dropped. (Although, by lowering the threshold, raising the DC, or both, the DM had the ability to quickly and effectively adjust the danger level in his campaign. So, as a House Rule, massive damage could be great; it's just the RAW that was near-pointless.)

Poisons were already neutered in 3e (there should be lethal poison. As in "no save, you have only a few hours to live unless someone find the antidote"),

"No save and die" is another thing that will lose players - they will rightly rebel. However, in this instance I agree that there is a better way to model lethal poisons, and that's by using a souped-up version of the disease rules.

In 3e terms, a 'magical poison' might work as follows:

Each poison has an onset time, a recurrence time, a save DC, a damage level, and a survival threshold.

When a character is initially poisoned, the poison has no effect until the onset time is reached, whereupon he must make his first save, or suffer the indicated damage. Thereafter, at each interval of the recurrence time, a new save must be made, or further damage is taken. If the PC makes a number of consecutive successful saves equal to the survival threshold, he has defeated the poison and need make no further saves.

(Obviously, Slow Poison would delay the next save for the duration of the spell; Neutralise Poison would get rid of it entirely.)

So, for instance, the poison Indiana Jones swallows in Temple of Doom might have the stats: Onset Time: 1 minute, Recurrence: 1 minute, Save DC 20, Damage 1d4 Con, Survival Threshold: 5.

By modelling the poison like this, the DM avoids charges of railroading (via a plot device), isn't accused of victimising players (with a 'no save' situation), places parameters on the whole process (allowing a huge array of such poisons to be used), and gets to use properly lethal poisons. Not to mention, by handling the decay of the character over a period of time, the PC becomes gradually more desperate as the poison takes its course - which matches the source material as well.

 

[Aloïsius]

*disclaimer : we don't know how those things will be handed in 4e, we only know the designers claims to have changed the way they work.*

If I fail because of my own decisions I'll accept it and move on. If I fail because of a random roll of the dice I guess I'll accept that too but it won't feel like I really did anything to deserve failing, which makes it a boring way to fail.

I think this is the point where we disagree, because we are not thinking on the same scale of events : If I understand you correctly, you are reasoning on a "per encounter" basis, while I'm thinking on a "per story" basis. If my 13 level druid and his buddy decide to go against a high level ennemy, and if we are not utterly careful, then bad things happen (well, bad thing happened last time).
That's what I like in high level play : you have an impressive array of powers you can use to gather informations and prepare yourself, but this is the same for your ennemy. And when the fight begins, you should already know what the main dangers are ("the beholder can disintegrate you or turn you into stone with its eye rays") and act accordingly ("this is to dangerous" or "we will fight in magical darkness so that he can't target us" "no, an antimagic field is the way to go!").
But fight remains dangerous, and if the main danger is a greatsword wielding cloud giant, there is a chance he cut you in half if you choose to attack him in melee.
High level threats should have various kind of "save or die" ability, be it death from massive damage (open critical roll could do this trick, yes), assassin death attack, or spells. But none of those ability should be unavoidable. Death ward, antimagic, fly, concealment... there should be a way to be able to prepare yourself to keep the higher ground. But if you are foolish enough to go in"kick in the door, kill the monster, take the treasure" mode when you are attacking the Temple of Orcus, be ready to die from a single roll.

 

[Malacoda]

Reductio Ad Absurdum

But its a fool's errand to try to get rid of them, and anyone advocating that these things be done away with is ruinning not only thier own enjoyment of the game but the fun of everyone else that ends up playing thier namby pampy effortless monte haul game.

I cannot help but think that these arguments often become exercises in reductio ad absurdum for some people.

Personally, as a player, I hate save-or-die style spells, traps, encounters, and so on. I dislike single die rolls determining my fate, until such time as it becomes appropriate. In turn, I dislike them determining the fate of my opponents.

As a gamemaster, I dislike such mechanics as well.

This does not mean I dislike risk, or threat of death or failure in a game. In fact, for typical “dungeon crawl” D&D, I demand it! But, I demand it in a manner I believe is more gratifying for myself, either as a player or a GM. This includes…

1. I like encounters where a series of dice rolls that I have at least a reasonable chance of succeeding at can lead to death. The most obvious example is combat. I am OK with the chance for my character to die because of a series of good rolls on the part of my opponent, especially when my options and party tactics come into play.

2. I am OK with my character being worn down and eventually killed in encounters that there is a reasonable chance I could have otherwise succeeded.

3. I am OK with occasional encounters that seriously tax the abilities and skill of my character and the party, that stand a fairly reasonable chance that someone will die. This is especially true when it meshes well with the story. The obvious example is the “final boss” fight.

4. I am OK with occasional surprises that lead to #3, as long as they are rare enough to be true surprises that mix things up a bit, without becoming the SOP of the game.

5. I am OK with failing at an endeavor as long as I feel I had a reasonable chance of succeeding in the first place, either from a series of rolls, or from player/party tactics, choices, and forethought.

6. I am OK with being presented with a series of equally poor choices, or with no-win scenarios, when they are rare and narratively interesting.

7. Eventually a character can arrive at a point where a given successful attack from a foe, or a missed saving throw, will result in death. I am OK with this.

8. I am OK with a given encounter requiring either excellent tactics or some measure of forethought based on provided info (even if such info has to be sought) in order to have a good chance of success. I prefer such encounters to be common enough to keep the game interesting; to many or not enough of such encounters can be either boring or draining.

9. Finally, I might OK with situations that take all of these into a more extreme level if such situations are rare, the result of poor decision making on the party’s part, or in a campaign where the GM has indicated the style beforehand (e.g. a gritty campaign).


What I do not like…

A. I do not like having the life-or-death fate of my character being determined by a single die roll, when there was little else I could do to avoid it, and it comes at any given time, rather than at the end of a struggle.

B. I do not like having the life-or-death fate of my foes being determined by a single die roll, when there was little else they could do to avoid it, and it comes at any given time, rather than at the end of a struggle. Excluded from this is foes of minor importance or met in waves (to a typical goblin, an attack from a fighter is likely to be a single-die-roll affair)

C. I dislike single dice rolls taking me out of encounters for extended periods of time, with any regularity.

D. I dislike A & C being solved via a rock/scissors/paper approach to spells and magic items.

E. I hate having to give so much thought to shoring up my character’s weak points, because at higher levels they become not just a nuisance, but a deadly liability. Note that this is not the same thing as wanting to have no weak points.


Do my two lists seem unreasonable? Am I asking for an I Win Button? I don’t think so at all.

And, to be honest, most of what people seem to be posting is arguments similar to mine. Perhaps not as codified or extensive, but still very similar.

The funny thing is, given a certain span of levels, D&D tends to play mostly as I am asking. I wonder if anyone engaged in the reductio ad absurdum arguements skip these levels because they are namby pampy effortless monte haul games.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

"No save and die" is another thing that will lose players - they will rightly rebel. However, in this instance I agree that there is a better way to model lethal poisons, and that's by using a souped-up version of the disease rules.

In 3e terms, a 'magical poison' might work as follows:

Each poison has an onset time, a recurrence time, a save DC, a damage level, and a survival threshold.

I actually did that within about 3 weeks of 3E coming out, when someone mentioned how much they didn't like the fact that there were no "long-term" poisons (i.e., king bedridden for months due to poison-based assassination attempt).

I responded with, "Yes, there are. They're just treated mechanically as diseases." Everyone nodded sagely, and we moved on.

 

[frankthedm]

No, it's really not. A DM who pulls that sort of thing will find himself without players in short order. However, that's not a rule change that's needed - it's a DM in need of re-education.

Why do you assume the situation is the DM's fault? The players could have just as easily been the ones who put themselves in such a perilous situation.