Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 117
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrudd View Post
    You've obviously never played D&D at low levels. For a group of level 1 D&D characters, especially in an edition with critical hits, death can come suddenly from even the weakest sort of creatures. Unless the DM is fudging dice rolls or playing encounters in such a way as to purposefully not threaten the PCs, almost any encounter is potentially a deadly threat. That's a choice of play style, but not what is implied by the game's mechanics.
    I play little else. And while you're entirely correct that - in principle, low levels are enormously dangerous - it still doesn't happen. That's pretty much my entire point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Nope, it is very different in my games.

    You are describing the classic cinematic game: that character death mostly only happens right at the climax. The rest of the adventure is just a Fun Romp. And it's a fine line between fun romp, and super silly. And this is why all such media has things like dumb bad guys and Stormtrooper Aim. The characters can run through a open area, in full view of bad guys with missile weapons that open fire, and they hit literally everything except the characters(wink wink).

    And your right, most games are played that way. Any combat encounter that is not a boss fight is just ''ok, the player characters will automatically do this, so lets just see how they do it." The question is only how will the the players 'win' the combat. The players can just check out...really even leave the room and check back every couple of minutes to see if the characters have won the fight yet.

    My game is nothing like that. No matter what or where the player characters are: death can happen at any time.
    I don't doubt your games are different. Though I'd be curious to see the actual statistics - whether your intention holds water or not. But never mind that =)

    I don't think most games are as close to silly romps as you make out. Sure, it's there. You make some sort of noise in a city with a large armed force, and yet not only do you get away with it, you never encounter any response stronger than what you can reliably handle. But even I wouldn't allow that: If my players get too silly, the full weight of the opposition will eventually fall upon them. And I'm very forgiving =)

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Not saying it should or shouldn't. I'm saying I've never ever seen any early (or random) encounter that would seriously threaten the PC's - if they play their cards right. I'll take that one step further and flat out claim that 99% of all PC death is in boss fights.

    And I'll go out on a limp and assume that that's no different in your games, whether as a player or a GM.
    You'd certainly be wrong here, and I question your methodology. And furthermore, that sounds like a terribly dull way to play. Every fight should be dangerous, or it's just an exercise in pointless time wasting. If a fight isn't dangerous, skip over it with narration.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Not saying it should or shouldn't. I'm saying I've never ever seen any early (or random) encounter that would seriously threaten the PC's - if they play their cards right. I'll take that one step further and flat out claim that 99% of all PC death is in boss fights.
    You're playing too much D&D, especially the more modern variants, that actually have to use the "boss fight" as a means to ramp up the challenge to sufficient level.

    Systems with a more concrete damage model, especially with a Death Spiral and Permanent Effects, are pretty deadly, even with the least formidable opponents. When a "Critical Hit" doesn't mean 19-20/x2 but rather: They cut of your right arm, now you're lying on the floor, screaming in pain and bleeding out in 1d4 rounds....

    So, while I agree with you that a typical D&D/PF Goblin encounter is something to sneeze at, because it mostly is designed for exactly that, sneezing at it, the same doesn't hold true for, say, Warhammer.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    You're playing too much D&D, especially the more modern variants, that actually have to use the "boss fight" as a means to ramp up the challenge to sufficient level.

    Systems with a more concrete damage model, especially with a Death Spiral and Permanent Effects, are pretty deadly, even with the least formidable opponents. When a "Critical Hit" doesn't mean 19-20/x2 but rather: They cut of your right arm, now you're lying on the floor, screaming in pain and bleeding out in 1d4 rounds....

    So, while I agree with you that a typical D&D/PF Goblin encounter is something to sneeze at, because it mostly is designed for exactly that, sneezing at it, the same doesn't hold true for, say, Warhammer.
    I play plenty of Dark Heresy, and I played a ton of Shadowrun back in the day. Please pack your assumption, and don't tell me what I play. You have precisely zero clue.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    You'd certainly be wrong here, and I question your methodology. And furthermore, that sounds like a terribly dull way to play. Every fight should be dangerous, or it's just an exercise in pointless time wasting. If a fight isn't dangerous, skip over it with narration.
    Missed this, so double posting. Sorry.

    There are two types of players. Those who play for a challenge, and those who play for fun. There's some overlap, obviously, but not excessively so. My games are fun, but not particularly challenging. Question all you like, personally I'd be bored to tears if I had to take it all seriously enough to make it challenging.

    Edit: Just wanted to point out that - if you're looking for a challenge, likely you consider that fun. It's not an either/or. More a case of what you consider to be fun.
    Last edited by Kaptin Keen; 2018-11-04 at 05:19 AM.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    @ NichG
    Interesting idea! Thanks for bringing it up.

    I will try this in tomorrows D&D game. With the following modifications and additions:

    1) I will extend this to other threatening effects, not just damage rolls for attacks.
    Seeing that you could be poisoned for 9 dexterity damage or getting dominated or affected by a powerful debuff has just as much weight as the possibilty of getting hit for a good ammount of damage.

    2) Following the line of though of using damage numbers/effects as a tool to inform what is happening in the narrative, I will not tell damage numbers or describe the effect if the attack is particularly deceptive.
    Note: this should be the exception. That means players (and the characters) will ususally know the risk of a threat - unless they don't. The unpredictabilty of the risk will become a feature of the threat.

    3) I will combine this with some "players roll all the dice" variant.
    To me this goes naturally with the "this is what gets thrown at you! Now make your defense!" dynamic that your idea has.

    Spoiler: player roll all the dice tanget
    Show

    To be mathematically equivalent an "attack DC" in D&D would be the creatures attack bonus + 12, correct?

    The SRD tells me that it should be +11, but this doesnt seem right.

    Normally the DC for hitting with an attack is 10 + AC modifier of the target, and the attacker rolls 1d20 + attack bonus.

    When switching to a defense roll while keeping how DCs work consistent in that you need only to reach the DC, not to exceed it you need to shift the difference to the DC. But the difference is not 1: in a unmodified contest (+0 attack vs. AC 10) there are 11 positive outcomes and (obviously) 9 negative of the die roll. 11 - 9 is obviously not 1 but 2.

    Is my thinking correct?

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Edit: Just wanted to point out that - if you're looking for a challenge, likely you consider that fun. It's not an either/or. More a case of what you consider to be fun.
    This is a key thing. For some, challenge is fun. For others, not so much. I'm in the latter boat, myself.

    The 4e D&D DMG had some good discussion about this. It split the "sources of fun" into a bunch of different common modes and then talked about how to cater to each one and how to avoid some of the common pitfalls of that mode. It also made clear that most people operate in blends of these modes and that none of them are badwrongfun. I'm AFB, but they included such things as

    * Exploration (seeing new things, descriptions of environments and creatures. This is my primary mode)
    * Narrative (the flow of the "story")
    * Power (big numbers, challenging or not)
    * Challenge (taking risks and pushing your builds/tactics/etc)
    * Tactical choices (having a bunch of options, playing 5D chess with game pieces)
    * Social environment (ie OOC socializing)
    * Characterization (might call this "method acting", getting into the head of a particular character)
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 533 MM and Volo's monsters

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Missed this, so double posting. Sorry.

    There are two types of players. Those who play for a challenge, and those who play for fun. There's some overlap, obviously, but not excessively so. My games are fun, but not particularly challenging. Question all you like, personally I'd be bored to tears if I had to take it all seriously enough to make it challenging.
    What I question is your assertion that 99% of PCs die in boss fights. You can certainly make that claim for your game, don't try to make it for others.

    Off the top of my head, the last time I GMed Torchbearer the PC deaths were:

    TPK to a random hell hound.
    Single death to freezing to death in a blizzard.
    Single death to being shot in the back by elves while fiddling with a locked door.
    Single death to holding back a group of fire salamanders while the rest of the party escaped.

    I can, in fact, say that zero percent of the PC deaths happened to what might have been considered the "boss" of each adventure.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Darth Ultron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    I don't think most games are as close to silly romps as you make out. Sure, it's there. You make some sort of noise in a city with a large armed force, and yet not only do you get away with it, you never encounter any response stronger than what you can reliably handle. But even I wouldn't allow that: If my players get too silly, the full weight of the opposition will eventually fall upon them. And I'm very forgiving =)
    Note I'm not talking like a silly, goofy game full of laughs and jokes and humor.

    When I say ''silly" I'm going more "absurd and foolish". The DM is way on the players side, is not aggressive, is forgiving, and just runs the world so the players can have easyfun and get a huge ego boost in it. Foes are no real threat to the characters...they just get in the way until the characters kill them. There are no serious problems for the characters, only light fluffy ones they can solve with little or no effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    There are two types of players. Those who play for a challenge, and those who play for fun. There's some overlap, obviously, but not excessively so. My games are fun, but not particularly challenging. Question all you like, personally I'd be bored to tears if I had to take it all seriously enough to make it challenging.
    I agree on the two types of players, but maybe Serious and Casual might be better descriptions.

    The Serious player wants to have fun by immersing themselves in the game 100% and act and feel and react as if the role playing game play is 100% real during the game. This player cares greasily about the game and thinks of it as much more then ''just a game"

    The Casual player just wants to waste some time and have fun. They don't really care about anything or even what they do to have fun...any game is fine with them...as long as it's fun. They don't want to think to much or do anything with any real effort, they just want to have fun. After all it's ''just a game".

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Re: character deaths in boss fights

    So, of my 6 most recent memorable RPG PC character deaths, 2 were to minions / random encounters, 2 were to other PCs, and 2 were to boss fights. If you add in war games, that would add one to minion deaths, and one to boss fight deaths.

    So, I'm looking at a rather even mix, IME.

    @Darth: "My game is nothing like that. No matter what or where the player characters are: death can happen at any time."

    So, if someone were running a literal deity, who was sitting at home, knitting, gardening, etc, would their life really be in danger in your games?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    Every fight should be dangerous, or it's just an exercise in pointless time wasting. If a fight isn't dangerous, skip over it with narration.
    You keep saying that. I'm a war gamer. Every fight should have a 50/50 chance of TPK, or else it's a boring snoozefest compared to a war game.

    Personally, I've found that RPG combat is about more than the challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Question all you like, personally I'd be bored to tears if I had to take it all seriously enough to make it challenging.

    Edit: Just wanted to point out that - if you're looking for a challenge, likely you consider that fun. It's not an either/or. More a case of what you consider to be fun.
    Not a fan of war games?

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Not a fan of war games?
    I can't speak for Kaptin Keen, but as for myself? Not as more than an occasional diversion.

    But really, war games (as presently known) and RPGs (even D&D as presently known) have diverged tremendously since their common ancestry. Here I speak of D&D-style games specifically, not all games.

    1. Adversarial nature. RPGs are cooperative (yes, even between DM and players, just in a different way). All the players can win simultaneously, because the "win conditions" are non-adversarial. PvP is an exception (and one the systems are not built around) rather than a core element.
    2. Narrative structure. RPGs have significant narrative structure and roleplay inherent in the concept. You can add it in ontop of a wargame, but it's decidedly secondary.
    3. Scope of responsibilities. RPGs tend to focus on a single character per non-DM player. Wargames have squads (at fewest) per player.
    4. Number of players. RPGs have a sweet spot around 5 people (4+DM). 2 (1 + DM) is too few for many styles, and 8 (7+DM) is quite large. Wargames tend to max out at 3-4 total, and most are 1v1 with a wandering referee (or no ref at all).
    5. Duration. RPGs tend to run >1 session (often 5+) with the same characters. Most wargames are one-and-done for any particular setup.
    6. Deadliness for any particular character. Even early D&D wasn't as lethal as wargames are (at least speaking of player characters).

    War games cater to two of the modes of fun I described above: challenge and tactics. For me, those are the least interesting of the modes as well. RPGs can touch on all of them, and can vary from session to session. That, to me, is the beauty of the genre.

    So comparing the two really doesn't teach much.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 533 MM and Volo's monsters

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Zombimode View Post

    Spoiler: player roll all the dice tanget
    Show

    To be mathematically equivalent an "attack DC" in D&D would be the creatures attack bonus + 12, correct?

    The SRD tells me that it should be +11, but this doesnt seem right.

    Normally the DC for hitting with an attack is 10 + AC modifier of the target, and the attacker rolls 1d20 + attack bonus.

    When switching to a defense roll while keeping how DCs work consistent in that you need only to reach the DC, not to exceed it you need to shift the difference to the DC. But the difference is not 1: in a unmodified contest (+0 attack vs. AC 10) there are 11 positive outcomes and (obviously) 9 negative of the die roll. 11 - 9 is obviously not 1 but 2.

    Is my thinking correct?
    You are right.

    The unmodified chance to hit an unarmored opponent is 55% - that's rolling 10+ on the d20.
    That means that the unarmored target successfully defends 45% of the time. If they were rolling, that would be 12+ on a d20.
    Rolling 11+ would be a straight 50/50 chance. It may be that they did that on purpose, making it a little easier for PCs to defend themselves with this variant.

    To keep the same relative percentages, attack DC would be 12+attack bonus.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Darth Ultron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post

    @Darth: "My game is nothing like that. No matter what or where the player characters are: death can happen at any time."

    So, if someone were running a literal deity, who was sitting at home, knitting, gardening, etc, would their life really be in danger in your games?
    Yes, sort of.

    Though I'd point out in my game deities are not alive (they are the third type after the Living and Undead: they Exist). As a deity is not alive, they can't be killed.

    But if your question is more ''a really powerful character sitting at home" have their life in danger? Well, not like if they use a knife to cut an apple they might obliterate themselves...but sure a foe or enemy might attack them at home. It's not like I do the ''metagame safe spot" like saying to the player ''ok I won't attack your character". Though, in general, sitting at home has like a 1% chance of danger, though lucky adventurers have much more exciting lives.



    Though I am talking more about things like:

    (3.5 D&D) The group wants to sneak into a castle tower. As part of that, they must balance along a narrow ledge along the wall over a moat of acid. It's not too hard, with a DC of 12. Player Ron rolls a 10 for his character Zimfan the wizard. Zimfan falls off the ledge and into the acid, takes 11 points of damage and dies.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Arbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Though I am talking more about things like:

    (3.5 D&D) The group wants to sneak into a castle tower. As part of that, they must balance along a narrow ledge along the wall over a moat of acid. It's not too hard, with a DC of 12. Player Ron rolls a 10 for his character Zimfan the wizard. Zimfan falls off the ledge and into the acid, takes 11 points of damage and dies.
    Nothing promotes good roleplaying like unavoidable chances of random instant death.

    "Well, they could've gone a different way!"
    Would that way have had something that could cause instant death on a bad die-roll, too?
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    The Random NPC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Koo Rehtorb View Post
    You'd certainly be wrong here, and I question your methodology. And furthermore, that sounds like a terribly dull way to play. Every fight should be dangerous, or it's just an exercise in pointless time wasting. If a fight isn't dangerous, skip over it with narration.
    I've had a GM do this once, everytime we narrated a fight I was left wondering why I bothered to make a character if nothing on the sheet matters. Of course, that's probably because he was a terrible GM and would narrate at pretty much every fight, even the ones we would have a good chance of dying in.
    See when a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, you can bet we've bought the vinyl.
    -Snow White

    Avatar by Chd

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    These days I tend to be a fan of games where the PCs themselves are almost 100% able to guarantee their own safety if they so choose, but the stakes are high with respect to how the world will be going forward. I also tend to strongly deemphasize danger coming from randomness, but instead make success depend on making good decisions in the face of incomplete information as well as irreducible tradeoffs.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Psikerlord's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    Not really going to argue, but I feel it's relevant that the great majority of fights have a zero percent chance of death. At full ressources, in an early encounter with the BBEG's first wave minions (or whatever) you really shouldn't ever die. Unless you did something patently retarded.

    On the other hand, a Final Bossfight might have a risk of death substantially higher than 2%.
    Yeah I agree with this and expect this is how most 5e adventures run in practice. It's an attirtion game, and until you hit that tipping point, there is no statistically significant chance of death.
    Last edited by Psikerlord; 2018-11-05 at 12:22 AM.
    Low Fantasy Gaming RPG - Free PDF at the link: https://lowfantasygaming.com/
    $1 Adventure Frameworks - RPG Mini Adventures: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=645444
    Midlands Low Magic Sandbox Setting - https://lowfantasygaming.com/2017/12...x-setting-pdf/
    GM Toolkits - Traps, Hirelings, Blackpowder, Mass Battle, 5e Hardmode, Olde World Loot http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/p...Fantasy-Gaming

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Darth Ultron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    "Well, they could've gone a different way!"
    Would that way have had something that could cause instant death on a bad die-roll, too?
    Of course the players could have done something a different way.

    Quote Originally Posted by NichG View Post
    These days I tend to be a fan of games where the PCs themselves are almost 100% able to guarantee their own safety if they so choose, but the stakes are high with respect to how the world will be going forward. I also tend to strongly deemphasize danger coming from randomness, but instead make success depend on making good decisions in the face of incomplete information as well as irreducible tradeoffs.
    Sounds good.

    To be clear, it's not like I'm just rolling a d20 every minute and if it's a negative number I kill a character.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Mid-Rohan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    (3.5 D&D) The group wants to sneak into a castle tower. As part of that, they must balance along a narrow ledge along the wall over a moat of acid. It's not too hard, with a DC of 12. Player Ron rolls a 10 for his character Zimfan the wizard. Zimfan falls off the ledge and into the acid, takes 11 points of damage and dies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Nothing promotes good roleplaying like unavoidable chances of random instant death.
    Well, by 3.5 rules, dying instantly here would be cheating the player.

    Failing a balance check by 4 or less just means you "make no progress." You fall failing the DC by 5 or more, so getting 10 on a DC 12 should never throw you off.

    Even if they rolled a 5, it should be possible to use the climb skill to catch themselves or for their allies nearby to assist. DC for catching yourself is 20+wall's climb DC, but catching another person is only 10+wall DC if you hit them with a touch attack (against which they can voluntarily lower their Dex to Touch AC).

    Point being that we have yet more evidence that DU's understanding of the rules produces a disproportionately harsh interpretation.
    Last edited by Pleh; 2018-11-05 at 06:44 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Thinker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Nothing promotes good roleplaying like unavoidable chances of random instant death.

    "Well, they could've gone a different way!"
    Would that way have had something that could cause instant death on a bad die-roll, too?
    It doesn't sound all that unavoidable. It's a middling skill-check with clear consequences. Parties typically have myriad resources that enable them to take on a challenge in ways other than head-on.
    "Only I may walk in the shadow between realms. Though I go mad, I do so to awaken those who came before and shall once more come again."

    "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." ~ Mark Twain

    - Fair Use has a Posse -

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Darth Ultron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleh View Post
    Point being that we have yet more evidence that DU's understanding of the rules produces a disproportionately harsh interpretation.
    Sure, you can Monday Morning Quaterback something that happen years ago. If it makes you feel better, and make a offering for the Almighty Rules, just say I typed ''1'' and the ''10" is a typo.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Arbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Sure, you can Monday Morning Quaterback something that happen years ago. If it makes you feel better, and make a offering for the Almighty Rules, just say I typed ''1'' and the ''10" is a typo.
    So the chance of Instant Unavoidable Death is 5%, not 50%. I guess that's an improvement, that's like three times as good odds as Russian Roulette gives you.
    Note that Russian Roulette is not something most people WANT to play.

    There's a reason the Old School D&D was largely an exercise in fast-talking the DM into AVOIDING using the actual rules as much as possible.
    Last edited by Arbane; 2018-11-05 at 03:28 PM.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    On the tropic of should fights always be dangerous, I would like to bring up an edge case. Every now and then I had run sessions were (by design) the pcs are more powerful then any foe they face.

    In such sessions the question of a fights is not 'can the pcs win?' but 'how will they win?'.

    Now I know such sessions are for everyone, my group does them infrequently so those sessions are the exception not the rule. So some times its fun to ask how instead of if.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Arbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by weet555 View Post
    On the tropic of should fights always be dangerous, I would like to bring up an edge case. Every now and then I had run sessions were (by design) the pcs are more powerful then any foe they face.

    In such sessions the question of a fights is not 'can the pcs win?' but 'how will they win?'.

    Now I know such sessions are for everyone, my group does them infrequently so those sessions are the exception not the rule. So some times its fun to ask how instead of if.
    Back in rec.games.frp.misc in the 1990s (I'm OOOOOOLD), I remember countless arguments about 'The Conan Problem' - if some stupid teenager with a rusty knife tries to mug Conan The Barbarian in an alleyway, should there be ANY chance of Conan dying?
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Except, as you point out, Character Death IS the biggest one.
    And an atomic bomb is the biggest one available to modern militaries. Which is not to say it is the most useful.

    (And I think campaign over, setting is destroyed would actually be the biggest negative consequence from a fight.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    if some stupid teenager with a rusty knife tries to mug Conan The Barbarian in an alleyway, should there be ANY chance of Conan dying?
    How drunk is Conan? This effects the answer and I could see Conan being very drunk at times.

    I've never read the original stories, but that is just the impression I get. But assuming he isn't the only reach chance of the untrained attacker's (I'm assuming that is meant but stupid teenager, not a 19 year old knight that has been training for over a decade) is surprise attack and again I have an impression that Conan is pretty alert. I think we could (perhaps generously) give a 1/20 chance of success, 20 on a twenty. I think maybe 1/50 might be better but I have no idea how to actually confirm that. The real issue is damage, even removing HP from the equation I don't think a not-quite-sharp-anymore-knife will kill anybody with a quick stab. Except by causing an infection. (I ruled slash to the throat because that might have to come from the front.*) Especially since I think Conan does not actually go around mostly naked, even without armour that might help vs. a rusty knife.

    * I don't actually know how stabbing someone in an ally works. I've never tried it.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Darth Ultron's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Back in rec.games.frp.misc in the 1990s (I'm OOOOOOLD), I remember countless arguments about 'The Conan Problem' - if some stupid teenager with a rusty knife tries to mug Conan The Barbarian in an alleyway, should there be ANY chance of Conan dying?
    Well, I'd say no. That example is just too extreme.

    Of course the ''default" Conan is like a 20th level character, at least. But that is the trick of the fiction, if you express it in D&D terms. 20th level Conan fights folks under 5th level most of the time. And that is what makes him great in fiction.

    Though, the question should be a bit more like ''if an experienced warrior (in D&D terms, at least half Conan's level) attacks Conan, should there be ANY chance of Conan dying?

    And the answer is: Yes.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Arbane's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    And the answer is: Yes.
    Out of morbid curiosity, what's the PC death rate in your games?
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Iamyourking's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Imperial Secret
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Also, if you tried to model Conan as a 20th level character you'd run into a lot of issues. Like the fact that he can't jump off a mountain, dust himself off, climb back to the top, jump off, and repeat the process a few more times before being at risk of dying. Or cleave through a stone wall in one blow. Or battle giant monsters and come out on top (Indeed, the largest monster I can think of him encountering is what is essentially a T. Rex in Red Nails, and he runs away from it despite being accompanied by Red Sonja.). Or perform superhuman feats of strength or speed. Conan, like most characters that are essentially really tough and really skilled but fundamentally human, would be best represented as being level 5 or 6; with their exceptional innate talent being represented with very high attributes.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Thank you to Ceika for the signature and avatar.

    Read Sons of the Fallen here

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    I think character death and loss bring a lot to the game. So they should happen often.
    From a different thread but I think it is better referred to here. Could you give me an example? Of your last 5 character deaths could do describe how it added to the game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Iamyourking View Post
    Also, if you tried to model Conan as a 20th level character you'd run into a lot of issues.
    I can't speak of Conan but I do know The Lord of the Rings well enough. I think Sauron, you know the invincible foe over the mountains, would be out-done by a level 20 D&D wizard, let alone any members of the fellowship.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Counterfactuals and the perception of game mechanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    And an atomic bomb is the biggest one available to modern militaries. Which is not to say it is the most useful.

    (And I think campaign over, setting is destroyed would actually be the biggest negative consequence from a fight.)
    The worst is never an immediate death or loss, because it's over quickly. The worst is having to commit to something one hates moving forward, for an extended period of time. It'd be much worse as a player to lose a fight and have their character inflicted with some brainwashing/torture/forced personality shift which is fundamentally incompatible or against the concept of the character, that now they must make effort to roleplay for as long as the campaign continues. Better for the character (or setting) to just die in those cases. Destruction ends the thing, but corruption steals it's very meaning out from under it.

    Use with caution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •