tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post8577661373378696981..comments2023-09-29T02:16:00.091-07:00Comments on Back Screen Pass - A DM's Secrets: Character Death = Function of Play Style?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-39948256129466891962010-03-17T00:50:54.398-07:002010-03-17T00:50:54.398-07:00When I was thinking of playstyle I wasn't real...When I was thinking of playstyle I wasn't really including fudging dice rolls or house ruling in it. I was thinking more about the kinds of monsters the DM chooses to use, the circumstances in which they're met, the amount of treasure given out, how much planning time the players get, whether the DM throws in a sleep spell in the first encounter to give them a fighting chance, etc.<br /><br />Also your example of 4e meshing the character roles better is an example of <i>play style</i> not rules, right? It also suggests that if you played a different style - for example, a party with no controllers and no tanks - then the game would be very deadly indeed, unless the DM adjusted the monsters accordingly.<br /><br />I don't think you should assume that no deaths=fudging dice. It could just mean that the first couple of adventures were set up to ensure PCs could plan for battle, had access to hirelings early, and so on. <br /><br />Looking at straight mechanics for the most venerable version of the game you quote, <i>on average</i> every PC becomes twice as hard to kill at second level as first; in individual instances they can increase by as little as 16%, and as much as 600%; but the long-run average over many sessions will be a doubling of non-killability at the first level-gain, etc. <br /><br />Also note my comment explicitly allows for a straight mechanical interpretation of 1e as more deadly than 4e; I just don't see it as being practically very applicable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-69307684507557729312010-03-11T14:44:44.265-08:002010-03-11T14:44:44.265-08:00After rereading all the comments above, I think I ...After rereading all the comments above, I think I have a different idea of what "playstyle" means than many. I don't wrap houserules up into playstyles, but that seems to be a common interpretation. <br /><br />For instance, Rob Barret's post above where he revealed that in all the years he has played the various editions, his group NEVER had a player die - there was obviously either some extreme houseruling or dice fudging going on there. Nothing wrong with that, it just wasn't what I had in mind when I was thinking about mechanics vs. playstyle.<br /><br />Fudging dice rolls is an interesting grey area, one that doesn't really qualify as a houserule (I have never heard a group explicitly say that they fudged dice rolls in the manner that a houserule is laid out there) but one that obviously has a very real impact on PC mortality. Rolling the dice out in the open and sticking to what they say is the way I roll, so to speak, and it is a way that I associate with old school gaming. It is, of course, also the way that the rules assume the game will be played - I have never read anything about fudging, ignoring or rerolling unsatisfactory dice rolls in ANY edition of the game. Does this fall underneath playstyle? Food for thought, and perhaps I should make a new post about houserules and dice rolling tendencies!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648499022366444265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-25619501728441925582010-03-11T14:06:23.884-08:002010-03-11T14:06:23.884-08:00@ Kevin - I do not see houserules as being playsty...@ Kevin - I do not see houserules as being playstyle - they are changes to the mechanics of the game. Whether or not houserules are common, or even specifically discussed in the rules, is irrelevant to this discussion. I am not saying it is wrong to houserule - you just cannot include houerules in comparisons across editions, because houserules very by definition from house to house.<br /><br />IMO, playstyle is HOW the group plays, not WHAT the group plays. A group that never engages in roleplaying outside of combat, attacking everything they meet on sight, would be an (extreme) example of a particular kind of playstyle, as opposed to, lets say, a group that spends most of their time outside of combat engaged in political maneuvering. <br /><br />When discussing if mechanics have an impact on player mortality, it is more than a little disingenuous to invoke houserules as a reason that a given edition is NOT deadlier than another. Sure, your group might have a houserule that a character can only actually die if her player is OK with that, and if not, the character is reduced to 1 HP - but you could not then claim that OD&D is not deadly because no one ever dies in your game! It is the mechanics of the houserule that makes the game not deadly, not the mechanics of the system in that example.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648499022366444265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-74866617188687586532010-03-11T13:45:35.695-08:002010-03-11T13:45:35.695-08:00@Carl: Go back and read any edition's player&#...@Carl: Go back and read any edition's player's handbook. They all have the same message: the things written in this book are guidelines, not necessarily hard and fast rules. D&D has always encouraged houseruling. The game was never intended to be played strictly rules-as-written. <br /><br />I just don't understand what the controversy is here. The "mechanics" are loose guidelines to having fun in a fantasy world. The "playstyle" is what the players and the DM agree to play, which could be lethal traps around every corner or it could be fighting monsters. In 4e, hp does not equal toughness, and hits don't necessarily mean physical damage. It also represents the creature's ability to keep fighting under the circumstances or their ability to hold off the attacks coming at them. As D&D has always been, the numbers are abstractions. So what's the big deal?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15500562574936544221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-52620263129715037272010-03-11T12:50:27.922-08:002010-03-11T12:50:27.922-08:00Carl,
Thanks for the reply.
--I grok the point. ...Carl,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br />--I grok the point. :)<br /><br />What are your thoughts on:<br /><br />http://thegrandtapestry.blogspot.com/2010/03/rpg-musings-on-fight-dice-and-alternate.html<br /><br />?<br /><br /><br />:DTimeshadowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09952601433965644275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-35280232768062130462010-03-11T12:41:14.528-08:002010-03-11T12:41:14.528-08:00I guess if "play style" includes ignorin...I guess if "play style" includes ignoring the rules as written, then it is much easier to say that it is play style that controls PC mortality. The most common example would be houseruling that PCs start with max HP at first level. Of course, I would argue that modifying the RAW to decrease mortality is actually PROOF of what I was saying - if you have to change the mechanics of the game to increase survivability, then obviously the mechanics directly impact mortality. <br /><br />@Timeshadows - thanks for the thoughtful analysy. I also prefer gamma worldt style HP, but I have slowly come around to seeing low starting HP in OD&D as, if not a feature, at least a contributor to the unique feel of the game when played RAW.<br /><br />@Kameron - I think your example proves that it is system, not playstyle - character death is when you have to roll up a new character because your character is gone. OD&D doesn't even give clerics a spell at first level, let alone access to raise dead! Making it mechanically easier to just bring back a character is the ultimate way to reduce PC mortality in a system. 4e takes it to the extremeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648499022366444265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-3673841447277640052010-03-11T10:01:58.238-08:002010-03-11T10:01:58.238-08:00S&W. Seven sessions and one character death (...S&W. Seven sessions and one character death (and plenty of near death). That one character death sent a hush around the table. Nobody thought it would really happen. Now they know it can happen and the game is much more exciting for it. Only two characters have reached 2nd level. They still roll for their HPs on a new level but to help them out they have to roll in the top 50% of their HD.<br /><br />It's knowing that death is hanging round any corner (or die roll) is what, IMO, fills the air with tension, regardless of DM, players, or mechanics. Do I fudge rolls to keep the game alive, sure. But when it's time to die, it's time to die.bliss_infintehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12433733609487959653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-10093574360904819612010-03-11T09:32:01.480-08:002010-03-11T09:32:01.480-08:00In all the years we played Moldvay, Mentzer, and A...In all the years we played Moldvay, Mentzer, and AD&D, I don't think we *ever* had a character die. Ever. Same for 2nd edition and 3rd edition for that matter. (The one character of mine who has ever died did so voluntarily, calling on the Gods of Lankhmar to strike down an all-powerful cult of demon-worshippers.) And each system involved different GMs, different players, and different cities. Which is why 4E just struck me as a mechanical realization of a common playstyle (i.e., recognizing that there was the gap you describe between the rules-as-written and the game-as-she-is-played--and then eliminating that gap). Obviously this is not the only common playstyle out in the wild; the gap wasn't there for lots of folks. But I would suggest that the low lethality predilection is not necessarily a *new* thing in D&D circles.Rob Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17791752557408134270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-21589787136495170952010-03-11T09:29:33.474-08:002010-03-11T09:29:33.474-08:00I've killed 3 PCs during the first 4 levels of...I've killed 3 PCs during the first 4 levels of adventuring in our 4E campaign. The Raise Dead ritual, available at 1st level, replaces the hireling mechanic of OD&D. I'd say my experience favors death rate as a function of play style. :)Kameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04457219206246387217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-21860433183703432972010-03-11T08:56:25.636-08:002010-03-11T08:56:25.636-08:00I would say that character mortality is entirely d...I would say that character mortality is entirely dependent on play style. In any system where the PCs can be killed, the group will have a specific (likely unstated) tolerance for the risk of death... just like they have similar meters for sexual content, cheesy puns and funny voices.<br /><br />Yes, 4E is systemically tilted against mortality while OD&D makes PC deaths quite probable. <b>All other things being equal</b>. But are they?<br /><br />The desire for tension, risk & triumph varies from group to group & even from player to player. Because as a player I personally minimize risk <i>in character</i>, I adjust my play in games of differing <i>systemic</i> risk to produce similar <i>actual</i> levels of danger.<br /><br />As a DM, I use my discretion to involve players of different temperaments (lone wolves, 'hulk smash!', juggling-at-the-inn) in situations with different levels of risk as suits what they find entertaining in a game.<br /><br />In a way there isn't really a RAW RPG... they are all a dance of Rules-As-Interpreted & Rules-In-Play.Vincent Diakuwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12176340701893887319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-27157408076949235192010-03-11T07:04:33.470-08:002010-03-11T07:04:33.470-08:00Carl,
Using 1 HP as the example, that you, and th...Carl,<br /><br />Using 1 HP as the example, that you, and then faustnotes reiterated, any increase in HP at second level is at least a 100% increase, or, as faustnotes stated, a doubling of existing HP.<br />--Furthermore, increasing 1 HP from 1st level to any amount beyond that at 2nd level (the average of which is roughly 16.67%) should, by Chainmail standards, indicate a second death-avoiding opportunity.<br /><br />The problem with the progressive HP model fostered by OD&D is that the meaning of 1 HP = 1 Hit is lost in the sense of a matriculation of toughness. HPs in AD&D required Gary's explanation that toughness was not really in view, but rather skill and luck and divine providence.<br />--Regardless of what function 4e or 6e or Ultra D&D 3000 has as its metric for HPs, as long as one looks at progressive HPs as a measure of toughness, it will fall down in examination.<br /><br />But, at the end of the day, if the healing/recovery system(s) in that particular edition are in-line with the average losses, the death rate (baring extraordinary circumstances) will be low.<br />--However, in OD&D, the sting of the intentional Chainmail metric of 1 HP = 1 Hit model was warped by the presence of battlefield/dungeon/exploration healing, whether by spell or potion, etc.<br /><br />Think of this from a modern perspective: A trooper is shot in the streets of a Middle Eastern insurgency. His ballistic plate is penetrated (a 'hit' in D&D terms). He begins to bleed out. The medic begins to stabilise him (not heal him, but stabilise) if the tissue damage/blood vessel damage isn't too great. Otherwise, the individual is bleeding out and must be evacuated from the field, or perishes (possibly on the spot, possibly even from '1 Hit'). That is the Chainmail 1 Hit = 1 HP.<br /><br />With OD&D's 1d6 HP mated with OD&D's all weapons do 1d6 HP damage, it is an odds-game that averages to 1 Hit = 1 Kill (1d6 v. 1d6 = 3.5 v. 3.5 = 0 HP remaining = Death).<br />--As soon as the character or creature has 2HD, the odds for 1 Hit = 1 Kill change. It may seem sketchy, but it is now a function of percentage-step increases in survivability.<br /><br />If 4e's (or 5th's or Ultra, what have you) methodology keeps these percentage-step increases in mind in designing meticulously balanced encounters, that is the reason why they have fewer fatalities per session.<br />--But, if the Chainmail assumption is then tweaked by variable damage and variable HD, and Con bonuses and HD+HP bonuses for monsters, and a vested disinterest in statistical balance, then one can say that both the system AND the playstyle engendered by the D&Disms (prior to 4e) are responsible for higher fatality rates.<br /><br />as 'anonynos' states in their own way, above, it is often portrayed (IMO, more so in the OSR than the OS in general) that character death is a badge of honour, then it is no wonder that that *style of play* coupled with the (Varible Damage + Variable HD) methodology would result in higher character fatalities.<br /><br />That's why I've always favoured the Gamma World / Morrow Project model that 'HPs' actually model physical trauma, rather than 1 HP = 1 Kill, as the latter method creates a strange economy of disparity (some would claim, 'chance'), whereas the military and police forces do their best to ensure that variables are reduced as much as possible when their prosecutors of warfare are sent out into harm's way.<br /><br />So, I hope I've demonstrated that design philosophy, play style, AND grit are what accounts for PC fatalities, as much as the 'luck of the roll', in any game.Timeshadowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09952601433965644275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7210223820598148815.post-76526289484307710032010-03-11T06:10:31.327-08:002010-03-11T06:10:31.327-08:00This is kinda tangental to your post topic but...
...This is kinda tangental to your post topic but...<br /><br />Lethality is one of the features that I've never really grasped. I mean, I understand the whole aspect where failure needs to have consequences or winning doesn't matter (I don't entirely buy into it, but I at least understand the argument)... but the it often feels like older games are held up as this glorious death-march of low level characters. I didn't like it when I started playing nearly 3 decades ago,and I don't like it now...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com