tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post8779522846207725769..comments2024-02-16T22:05:32.773+02:00Comments on LotFP: RPG: Stop Trying to Kill Me and KILL MEJimLotFPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-75445924943085541712010-10-02T00:19:33.786+03:002010-10-02T00:19:33.786+03:00Sorry I lost track of this one and didn't come...Sorry I lost track of this one and didn't come back to it sooner.<br /><br /><i>navdi said... <br />shimrod,<br /><br />Believe it or not, I have actually played a lot of 3.5 modules, both for organized play and otherwise, and more often than not, encounters are designed to be tackled head on by the party, and the difficulty of said encounters is balanced for the party to manage without loss of life. </i><br /><br />But that's also true of encounters and modules in every other edition of D&D. MOST encounters are expected not to be ones with a high chance of killing PCs (at least after 1st or 2nd level, in the case of older editions). If a high percentage of combat encounters have a strong chance of killing one or more PCs, mathematically it works out that everyone dies too often to ever really advance. What 3E & 4E did is give the DM better tools to be able to judge the difficulty. They both explicitly support having softer encounters and harder encounters. They never say that you're not supposed to give the PCs encounters not matching their level; that's a canard. What they DO is give you tools to help you avoid throwing stuff that's tougher than the PCs can handle too often, and kill them so often that it sabotages your game. <br /><br />Prior to 3E, the only tools a DM had to judge this were eyeballing monster hit dice and personal experience. Which is okay, but very little help to a new DM. Even 3E's CR wasn't always accurate, but it was an improvement. 4E's system's still not perfect, nor do I think any ever will be, but overall it works the best so far, IME.<br /><br />That being said, inspired by the OSR and by playing a couple of Con games with Frank Mentzer in the last couple of years, a good chunk of my 4E game is sandboxy, with monsters placed without direct reference to the PCs' capabilities, so they can encounter stuff weaker or stronger than they are depending on where they choose to go. When I write up wandering monster charts/random encounters, I usually make them a d6 chart of stuff deliberately ranging from a couple of levels below to a few levels above the PCs. It keeps it feeling organic, makes sure I don't necessarily know what's coming, and makes sure the PCs think on their feet and know that sometimes they're better off talking, retreating, or evading. But knowing the difficulty of each encounter pretty well, I know what they're getting into once I do roll it up.<br /><br />One thing I will agree with is that the majority of encounters in prepared adventures are designed to be faced head-on, and that it would be nice if more were set up to be avoided or circumvented. The tough thing there has always been that when writing a prepared adventure, it can feel like a waste of paper if you spend space detailing an encounter and then it's completely avoided. This is definitely an area where early editions have an advantage over newer, because the monster encounters generally take less space to describe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-68389381598322072352010-09-29T00:13:18.807+03:002010-09-29T00:13:18.807+03:00"So I don't think a deadly campaign is a ..."So I don't think a deadly campaign is a necessary aspect of old-school D&D play."<br /><br />I would agree...with the caveat that I feel a <i>potentially</i> deadly campaign is. :)Will Mistrettahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18403399118961902073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-91287843883517928222010-09-28T11:55:22.713+03:002010-09-28T11:55:22.713+03:00"More to the point, the only meaningful mecha..."More to the point, the only meaningful mechanics in terms of player empowerment granted to the magic-user is to cast a spell once per adventure (more or less). Anything else is outside the strict scope of the mechanics provided."<br /><br />I would say that anything else is roleplaying. IMHO it is not the mechanics that empower the player. It is the players imagination that empowers him. The rules only translate these ideas into usable terms.<br /><br />"If I sat down at the table with the expectation of "playing a wizard", it is not "bad gaming" to decide that D&D does not grant that."<br /><br />I would say that it depends on what you expect a wizard to be able to do. In older D&D you start as someone barely out of apprenticeship.<br /><br />"Two decades ago, I drifted away from D&D because I had to fight against the mechanics in order to approximate elements from the fiction I was reading and enjoying at the time (namely, anything that had to do with fantastic magic, or, in particular, Elric, which is why I moved on to Stormbringer (btw, it seems to me Stormbringer would make for a better substrate for LotFP:WFP than D&D, but that's just me))."<br /><br />And this is what I woould do too.<br />Theoretically you cann use every RPG and play every kind of style. Practically every RPG favors a special kind of style.<br /><br />For example, if I want to do SF space Opera Style i would use Star Frontiers. But If I want to go Trading, Exploring and do a more realistic game I would use Traveller. And lastly, if I want to do Cthulhu meets Gothic meets Space Opera I would use Warhammer 40k RPG.<br /><br />D&D in every edition favors a game where you gain personal power as you explore and defeat the hostile environment. You start out weak and end up powerful.KristianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00232005660954059260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-47215438360794485872010-09-28T08:13:10.331+03:002010-09-28T08:13:10.331+03:00>>A DM has to stretch beyond the rules on th...>>A DM has to stretch beyond the rules on the page in order to provide the magic-user player with opportunities to be important.<br /><br />I'll say this applies to <i>every</i> class. I have sessions with no combat, and that doesn't mean the fighting classes sit around with their thumbs up their ass.<br /><br />>>If a player has to leap for extra-mechanical devices in order to have meaningful input to the game, why are the mechanics there in the first place, and are they doing their job? <br /><br />Mechanics exist to provide an impartial source to resolve situations in play. Nothing more.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-19253221582939359042010-09-28T04:46:58.660+03:002010-09-28T04:46:58.660+03:00@KristianH
>But it has everything to do with ba...@KristianH<br />>But it has everything to do with bad refereing and bad gaming!<br /><br />>Bad refereing in not providing the player with the chance to do something "meaningful". and in older editions that does not necessarily is the ability to kill/wound/heal something.<br /><br />My comment doesn't have anything to do with the ability to "kill/wound/heal" something. The only way to provide the role of "wizard" in older editions of D&D is to simply event mechanics to do it. A 20th level wizard in older D&D editions barely approximates the picture of a wizard from fantasy literature. If someone signed up to play this, they are SOL. <br /><br />More to the point, the only meaningful mechanics in terms of player empowerment granted to the magic-user is to cast a spell once per adventure (more or less). Anything else is outside the strict scope of the mechanics provided. A DM has to stretch beyond the rules on the page in order to provide the magic-user player with opportunities to be important.<br /><br />>Bad gaming in not looking for chances to add a meaningful contribution. Again, in older editions that does not necessarily is the ability to kill/wound/heal something.<br /><br />If I sat down at the table with the expectation of "playing a wizard", it is not "bad gaming" to decide that D&D does not grant that. I can find ways to make do, but why is it expected that I have to do this? Two decades ago, I drifted away from D&D because I had to fight against the mechanics in order to approximate elements from the fiction I was reading and enjoying at the time (namely, anything that had to do with fantastic magic, or, in particular, Elric, which is why I moved on to Stormbringer (btw, it seems to me Stormbringer would make for a better substrate for LotFP:WFP than D&D, but that's just me)). <br /><br />If a player has to leap for extra-mechanical devices in order to have meaningful input to the game, why are the mechanics there in the first place, and are they doing their job?Michael Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994557942003895872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-50398732125939918242010-09-28T00:04:00.698+03:002010-09-28T00:04:00.698+03:00The campaign on track comment is a good point: Wo...The campaign on track comment is a good point: World balance and the ecosystem there always has been unclear.<br /><br />That's why I have always hated Forgotten Realms with its ultra-uber NPCs like Elminster. Greyhawk had a little of that, but the characters like Rary are somewhat compelling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-42767329386294731862010-09-27T19:53:42.752+03:002010-09-27T19:53:42.752+03:00>>By reducing player capability via remainin...>>By reducing player capability via remaining around low levels, and by implication spells and magic, one can control the adventure train and "keep it on tracks".<br /><br />It's the campaign world I'm worried about keeping "on the tracks." High level adventures are no big deal as long as they're "out there," but if one tries to keep a coherent campaign world where most everyone, including rulers, are 0 level, high level characters basically becomes super heroes and never have to worry about adventures.<br /><br />... or you have all the rulers and "power players" be high level and loaded up with magic and then the world looks completely alien. And I don't like that.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-38144977406084678322010-09-27T19:26:45.775+03:002010-09-27T19:26:45.775+03:00James,
Awesome post.
Awesome. You did show some ...James,<br /><br />Awesome post.<br />Awesome. You did show some stripes though.<br />Delineating that they are separate games, like Neanderthals cohabitating with "Modern man" at the same time.... very true! <br />And, that someone can adapt is key.<br /><br />I will say a few things regarding the "game intent" going back and forth. Everyone is referencing "encounters". Anyone could make a 4-cruddy game OSR "in spirit" just by having higher level monsters and threats, or adding a metaphorical powder keg here or there. <br /><br />It is style over substance, even if the inherent game mechanics point you in a certain direction. Anyone who needs rules to tell them this... well some of us do.<br /><br />Ah, about the "stripes":<br /><br />I have mentioned before that being a "deadly" old school DM correlates (not always, correlates) highly with two tendencies:<br /><br />1) Tacit or explicit fear/hatred of developing a high-level campaign that remains engaging and challenging.<br /><br />Despite the save-or-die centipede reference, the reality is at higher levels spells offset these things - e.g., resurrect<br /><br />By reducing player capability via remaining around low levels, and by implication spells and magic, one can control the adventure train and "keep it on tracks".<br /><br />2) Use of "fixed fortifications" rather than dynamics in adventuring. <br /><br />What do I mean about this? Imagine "rooms" or "encounters" as fortifications of the Maginot Line in WWII. Dangerous, unless you simply go around them through Belgium.<br /><br />These "fixed" set piece encounters tend to be backed by elaborate magical contrivances / poisonous monsters / Rube-Goldberg traps that often lead to a "don't touch anything", my guy isn't in the room mentality.<br /><br />Example: an OSR adventure rarely will have a critical milestone dependent upon hacking and slashing through multiple incremental damage opponents, like 10 Ogres.<br /><br />Spells and magic and circumspect tactics allows for circumvention of a Maginot Line of threats.<br /><br />The idea that high level character rules are there for one-shots or anything of that ilk is a revealing statement. As is "tastes" of high level spells via scrolls. At least you are consistent old friend!<br /><br />To each their own! I would love to play in a James Raggi game. He does reward creativity, but as players, not as leveraging a character build / power level. <br /><br />So, I run mine differently. It is what it is.<br /><br />Incidentally, I did die in the tutorial. <br />And, three players perished in Stargazer. And that was while adapted to 3.5-ish. Style can be brought into any system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-5461092283833631022010-09-27T17:37:47.636+03:002010-09-27T17:37:47.636+03:00@Michael
Sitting around a table for 4 hours as a m...@Michael<br />Sitting around a table for 4 hours as a magic user and only doing something "meaningful" for 1 turn has nothing to do with game design.<br /><br />But it has everything to do with bad refereing and bad gaming!<br /><br />Bad refereing in not providing the player with the chance to do something "meaningful". and in older editions that does not necessarily is the ability to kill/wound/heal something.<br /><br />Bad gaming in not looking for chances to add a meaningful contribution. Again, in older editions that does not necessarily is the ability to kill/wound/heal something.KristianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00232005660954059260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-21083291736254091942010-09-27T15:55:58.310+03:002010-09-27T15:55:58.310+03:00>Those are from the D&D4 GM's guide. I ...>Those are from the D&D4 GM's guide. I don't have any D&D3 materials to hand.<br /><br />kelvingreen, if you're going to quote, keep on going. The paragraph you quoted from defines a "standard" encounter as balanced. The very next statements in the DMG are about adjusting encounters to be more or less difficult according to taste. "Step 1" in the encounter design sidebar on that page is "Choose an encounter level", i.e. decide how hard you want the encounter to be.<br /><br />Something I don't understand is the point of view which treats 4e as this rigorous, narrow system when in fact it has been designed to be efficient and flexible for DMs. It *is* in fact very old school in this respect and the encounter design philosophy reflects this.<br /><br />Regarding political correctness, that concept is a social issue concerning the insult of groups perceived to be marginalized. Trying to tell James that he can't dish out his trademark wit to "new schoolers" and white wolfers is political correctness. Thus the following:<br /><br />> It's why there are no save-or-die effects, why rust monsters don't destroy items any more, why mages never run out of spells, why everyone has more hit points, and why all classes have the same number of abilities.<br /><br />are nothing more than what they are, design choices to mold a particular experience, for example one where a wizard doesn't spend 4 hours sitting around a table deciding to fire his crossbow and precisely 1 turn casting Sleep.Michael Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14994557942003895872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-80217655788856809442010-09-27T14:44:15.779+03:002010-09-27T14:44:15.779+03:00One of the first rules I ditched in 3rd edition wa...One of the first rules I ditched in 3rd edition was the assumption of "balanced" encounters.<br /><br />I every environment there are Monsters on the end of the food chain and there are the top tier predators. And the players never know where they might fit in. <br />If the PCs are are to stupid to run when they enccounter an Ogre,Dragon, Demon or what have you and are outclassed, I will kill them (messily).KristianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00232005660954059260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-4555050714376453272010-09-26T22:41:09.098+03:002010-09-26T22:41:09.098+03:00Er, no, not quite. I think you may have got a bit ...Er, no, not quite. I think you may have got a bit sidetracked there.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-54568655985223807162010-09-26T21:03:18.385+03:002010-09-26T21:03:18.385+03:00@kelvingreen wrote:
"anarchist, in this cont...@kelvingreen wrote:<br /><br />"anarchist, in this context I understand it to mean that the game has a perceived culture of 'everyone is a special snowflake'"...<br /><br />By that definition John Carter of Mars (the greatest swordsman on Mars, eventually the king of the planet, and also immortal) is the most politically correct hero ever.<br /><br />Thus, that definition of 'politically correct' is misleadingly broad and vague.<br /><br />A lot of words used in politics eventually get used for more and more things, until they just mean 'something I don't like'. I think 'politically correct' has clearly suffered that fate, at least in the context of "3rd and 4th edition are politically correct."anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-11259434674329021972010-09-26T19:35:07.093+03:002010-09-26T19:35:07.093+03:00anarchist, in this context I understand it to mean...<b>anarchist</b>, in this context I understand it to mean that the game has a perceived culture of "everyone is a special snowflake", and I can certainly see where that perception comes from.<br /><br />I do think that in flattening the classes so that everyone has the same power structure, and all the powers work in the same way they have fallen into the trap of "if everyone is special, then no one is". This does not make it a bad game, but it's not to my tastes; I've come to appreciate the mechanical differences between the thief, fighter and mage in the older editions.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-44914290339874887682010-09-26T17:29:17.885+03:002010-09-26T17:29:17.885+03:00@kelvingreen:
It sounds like your definition of &...@kelvingreen:<br /><br />It sounds like your definition of 'politically correct' is much broader than the one used in general discourse - but similar to how it's used in terms of this specific accusation.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-43368813216371111842010-09-26T14:44:42.262+03:002010-09-26T14:44:42.262+03:00PS The reasonably frequent assertion that 3rd and ...<i>PS The reasonably frequent assertion that 3rd and 4th edition D&D represent 'politically-correct gaming' doesn't hold up.</i><br /><br />Except it's a stated goal of the designers. It's why there are no save-or-die effects, why rust monsters don't destroy items any more, why mages never run out of spells, why everyone has more hit points, and why all classes have the same number of abilities.<br /><br />That's not necessarily a criticism, by the way, but I don't think you can say that the game hasn't been evened out, when not only is it obvious that it's the case, but the designers themselves have confirmed that such a flattening was one of their aims.<br /><br /><i>It's not the basic assumption in 3E or 4E that everything the group meets should be beatable in a straight-up fight.</i><br />Not so. This is the point of the Encounter Level system:<br /><br />"Building an encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters and combining them in interesting and challenging ways."<br /><br />"A standard encounter should challenge a typical group of characters but not overwhelm them. The characters should prevail if they haven’t depleted their daily resources or had a streak of bad luck."<br /><br />Those are from the <i>D&D4</i> GM's guide. I don't have any <i>D&D3</i> materials to hand.<br /><br />Again, I don't think this is a bad thing if that's the kind of game you want to play, but it's disingenuous to suggest that it's not in the game.thekelvingreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01928260185408072124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-74135055650573425222010-09-25T21:23:35.020+03:002010-09-25T21:23:35.020+03:00shimrod,
Believe it or not, I have actually playe...shimrod,<br /><br />Believe it or not, I have actually played a lot of 3.5 modules, both for organized play and otherwise, and more often than not, encounters are designed to be tackled head on by the party, and the difficulty of said encounters is balanced for the party to manage without loss of life. <br /><br />I've had several die-hard 3.5-players tell me that if an encounter gets even one party member killed, it was too difficult, and therefore unbalanced. I stand by my opinion (which is based on extensive observation of gaming trends) that combat encounters in 3.5 are designed to offer varying challenges, where more difficult equals a bigger drain on party resources, and the goal of a string of such encounters should be character advancement without unreasonable resource drain (e.g. gold).<br /><br />I'm sure there are people out there who play a more deadly variety of 3.5 or 4e. These are, however, not the norm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-77683241450920728102010-09-25T20:47:11.895+03:002010-09-25T20:47:11.895+03:00It's not the basic assumption in 3E or 4E that...It's not the basic assumption in 3E or 4E that everything the group meets should be beatable in a straight-up fight. This is a fiction which was probably originally based on a misunderstanding, but has since become a too-oft-repeated distortion and falsehood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-83407374133931614472010-09-25T19:44:20.529+03:002010-09-25T19:44:20.529+03:00anarchist, sounds like you're doing something ...anarchist, sounds like you're doing something wrong. My guess is your players are too combat-oriented, and come into the game with the assumption that everything the group meets in-game should be beatable in a straight-up fight. In 3.5 and 4e, sure, it is the basic assumption. In older versions of the game, not so. <br /><br />Combat should be avoided like the plague in OD&D. Dungeons should be explored with caution, proper equipment and time, as any hazard might get characters killed. Big, nasty monsters should be dealt with either by running away, or using trickery and guile, as charging straight into combat is in most cases only going to net you a party of dead characters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-4682873750979388152010-09-25T18:16:16.336+03:002010-09-25T18:16:16.336+03:00PS The reasonably frequent assertion that 3rd and ...PS The reasonably frequent assertion that 3rd and 4th edition D&D represent 'politically-correct gaming' doesn't hold up. You could equally argue that 3rd and 4th edition are 'elitist gaming' because the characters are inherently better than those around them.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-86893427223132624562010-09-25T18:14:25.058+03:002010-09-25T18:14:25.058+03:00I wish this matched with my experience. However I&...I wish this matched with my experience. However I've run OD&D twice, had a more-than-TPK twice, and no one wanted to play again twice. Also, going by the OSR forums, most people beef up first level characters to make them more likely to survive.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-88573567711142341832010-09-25T15:50:21.879+03:002010-09-25T15:50:21.879+03:00Great post. I just started playing in an old schoo...Great post. I just started playing in an old school campaign after suffering through 4e for the last 2 years. Our DM did a great job of making 4e palatable, but the old school game is pure fun.Frezdchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037984335944108627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-18652641962459350482010-09-25T07:44:38.748+03:002010-09-25T07:44:38.748+03:00You must be new here.You must be new here.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-83605850118711923792010-09-25T07:03:07.766+03:002010-09-25T07:03:07.766+03:00Alright, I just got to say that this blog post tot...Alright, I just got to say that this blog post totally turned me off from purchasing your product. Way to insult potential customers, bro.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05326459836454032845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-38260490319695071482010-09-25T06:49:40.203+03:002010-09-25T06:49:40.203+03:00If we are having a conversation that starts with t...If we are having a conversation that starts with the assumption that different games deliver different experiences; and argues we should play each game for what it is rather than pretending they are all of a piece, then Ron Edwards has already won... ;)Rafialhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07077298546098373938noreply@blogger.com