So, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has Players that get too damn-the-torpedoes determined to end up "getting" the bad guy, that they are quite willing to charge in to their nearly-certain deaths to fight the bad guy, or that will not accept giving up at chasing the bad guy at every fucking turn?
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but at some point it has its limits; in particular, it has its limit where the player isn't seriously considering that the possibility of failure or death should even exist for their character, contrary to all evidence in front of them.
I mean, there's no reason that the players shouldn't try to kill the uber-boss or try desperately to catch the fleeing villain so that he doesn't strike again; and I'd be a poor GM if I just rigged a way to make this impossible for them once I had put it on the table.
But on the other hand, they're stupid players if they think that I'm somehow obliged to make the opponent defeatable or the villain catchable; something that I think a lot of players believe must be true.
Personally I blame D&D.
No, you didn't hear that wrong; this is something I place blame on D20 for.
.
.
.
.
I'll just let that sink in.
Ok, good? Let's continue:
For certain, before D&D 3.0 players still had a reckless level of risk-taking in fighting enemies, but usually if you put a group of low-level players against an obviously very powerful wizard, or against a dragon, or what have you; they would RUN like the wind, screaming like little girls.
But now, players have all been convinced, via the mentality of "challenge rating" and "balancing encounters", that I as a GM are somehow obliged to ONLY put them up against opponents that they actually stand a reasonable chance of somehow beating.
As such, running away just never comes up as a serious option for them anymore; and catching the bad guy becomes a full-blown requirement.
As a result, GMs are forced to either give the players what they want, fudge the combat, etc; or end up having either a very quickly dead party (in the first scenario of facing a vastly superior foe), or a very long unproductive last two hours of the session (as you patiently play through all the Player's efforts to catch the opponent and not let him get away, explaining to him time and time again that it would just not be possible to get him/find him).
This creates some serious hassles in high-risk campaigns, or if you're running games where, say, you want to have a recurring villain and a non-dead party.
But how the fuck to deal with these kinds of things without being all railroady?
RPGPundit
Well my starting point as far as the battle itself goes is that not every villain will kill off the party, maybe they'll just beat the crap out them, take their gear and sell them to slavers. Or maybe the bad guy will rip a page out of a Bond novel and set up a gruesome, over-elaborate, but avoidable trap to 'properly' kill the party, then leave for no good reason. Either way, I won't be afraid to impress upon the party that if they mess with the dire bull, they will get the horns.
Mechanically, I see CR as not only a means of balancing a fight, but as the mechanism for determining XP. Since my next D20 game will have PC leveling determined by me alone, they can't just assume that getting into a rediculously tough fight will net them any great benefit beyond a butt kicking.
Finally if they simply ignore every attempt I make to warn them of how outclassed they are, I might just have to kill a good deal of them. I don't really seek this option, but if I have to I will.
What's wrong with having a chat with your players, telling them that you don't stick slavishly to the CR mechanism? They should keep in mind, that for reasons of a realistic world or storytelling, there might be opponents that are beyond their way to manage. Especially with new players who come from another D20 DM who didn't do this, it might be neccesary. In the same conversation, I usually explain that I don't care too much about the standardized wealth distribution either. The PC's aren't _entitled_ to fair challenges and appropriate treasure.
It usually helps to introduce an encounter they can't solve by pure scream-and-charge tactics pretty early on. Then if the argument comes up, the player can remember that and be more careful.
"He can't be that difficult!"
"Remember the half-dragon half-celestial ogre mage Fighter/Mage in our first adventure?"
Interestingly, the first "adventure path" from WotC did something like this. In the second adventure ("Forge of Fury") there was a roper. WAY beyond the abilities of the party. From reviews and discussions, it seems that quite a lot of players actually tried to fight him. Some people (including the author) even suggested taking him out if the party is too enthusiastic (i.e. dumb).
Sometimes taking the Hackmaster view is appropriate: Kill them, the next characters will be better.
I once ran a AD&D 2E campaign. One of the most memorable fights was a battle between the 5th level characters and a 10th level necromancer, who had booby-trapped the upper floor of an inn (he'd seen them coming from a window, charging through a merc company.
The necromancer used the spare turns he had before they arrived to cast Web, Darkness and Summon some Shadows (ugly combo, I tell you), plus a Stoneskin on himself (2E Stoneskin is nuts, IMHO). The mage also used Vampric Touch and area damage spells during the fight, killing one character and critically injuring some of the others. In the end, the group forced him to teleport away (but with one important NPC as hostage, heh), but only because the cleric had managed to bribe the mercenaries' leader.
Cakewalks get boring pretty fast. Epic struggles with unexpected results are memorable.
My players often run at the first sign of danger. It's kind of funny, really, because I rarely kill pcs. I am however fairly notorius for taking all their stuff, or limb/eye/ear. I once had one the PCs chained to a chair in an arena full of lizardmen as one of the bad guys removed the pc's fingers one at a time- and ate them.
With my players it's kinda weird. They know I don't stick to CR so anything they meet might be horribly over or underpowered compared to them. Generally they tend to run when they should and fight when they should. But then, at some point, it always happens that they suddenly decide to not flee when they're geting beaten senseless. I don't know if it's because of a desire to go out in a blaze of glory, because they've gotten so familiar with their strengths they're overconfident, or what.
QuoteBut now, players have all been convinced, via the mentality of "challenge rating" and "balancing encounters", that I as a GM are somehow obliged to ONLY put them up against opponents that they actually stand a reasonable chance of somehow beating.
Total Bullshit, and misunderstanding the CR system.
But: Published 3.x Adventures, they surely cater and breed that line of thinking.
Don´t mix a measuring tool with it`s application. CR has been there, always. But current published adventure design is different, than in those "against the giants" days.
That´s the problem, not the CR system.
I wonder how much of the issue is in an encounter's set up.
One of the hard things about the fight that the PCs can't win is that when the players realize they can't win, it's too late for them to run. Or, they at least feel that way.
Take the roper encounter as an example. If the players come across a roper and a few of them beat its initiative, the party's fighters might charge forward to attack. Only after the roper attacks does the party see that they might not be able to win. At this point, the party still has a few members engaged. Does everyone just run and leave them to their fate? In this case, the players didn't know they were "supposed" to run until it was too late.
On top of this, the initiative system is pretty hard on groups that try to run away. Here's a classic situation:
PC or Monster -- Initiative
Rogue -- 17
Fighther -- 13
Troll -- 11
Sorcerer -- 9
Let's say the party decides to run away. If the rogue and fighter are between the troll and the sorcerer, what do they do? They can stand and fight for another round, or delay, but the troll might eat them. If they run, the troll goes next and attacks the sorcerer.
I think the CR system does contribute to situations where the party doesn't run, but I also think the system does things to make running away hard to do. On top of that, it falls to the DM to give the player enough information to make an informed decision before the party commits to the fight.
Dave Noonan had an interesting article about this on the WotC web site. I can't fight it right now, but it's there somewhere.
Quote from: SettembriniBut current published adventure design is different, than in those "against the giants" days.
That´s the problem, not the CR system.
Really think so? I'm not the most avid adventure buyer, but in the few I read, there was quite a wide range of challenge ratings. And considering that most recent adventures stress "dungeon ecology" a bit, you could easily inflate the CR heavily if the monsters from the neighboring room arrive.
Did the WotC adventures get worse and only deliver a +/-1 deviation from the expected group level?
QuoteDid the WotC adventures get worse and only deliver a +/-1 deviation from the expected group level?
I talking from first hand experience with paizo adventures, Age of Worms to be exact. We just hit 20th level, and never had to run. Every single encounter was beatable. Sure, there were som Group level+5 fights in them.
Still running was not even considered once.
OTOH, I GMed Against the Giants yesterday for a 3.5 group, and after they scouted the hill giants steading, they knew they had to deal with the situation smartly. They tried guerilla tactics (killing the chief, blaming it on the cloud giants, attacking lone giants etc.), until the hill giants set up a trap for them, and they fled to fight another day.
QuoteOn top of that, it falls to the DM to give the player enough information to make an informed decision before the party commits to the fight.
I really have the impression it´s all about how (dungeon magazine) adventures are written these days. They oftentimes don`t give you information
and/or choice on the upcoming encounters. Flight and avoidance or guerilla tactics make only sense if you face a larger problem/challenge/conflict like in ATG.
As much as I'm ready to jump on the hat of d20 bandwagon, I don't think its entirely the fault of D&D or the CR system. I've seen the same behaviour out of players who have never even touched it. I think it's just a natural part of RPGs, though it is something you can deal with. I don't think its a case of expecting the Big Bad to always be defeatable. I think its more that most players would rather lose a character than let the bad guy get away. Making the BBEG kill off characters isn't going to teach them anything. They know damn well that their characters will likely die, and consider it worth the cost.
Metagame mechanics can help here - it gives the GM license to give them an escape route and pay off the PCs. Another option is to make the BBEG secluded or hidden and the challenge of the campaign is to *find* him. But unless you utilize cut scenes or something that doesn't make him much of a recurring villian. Or you can have a reason for them not to kill him - perhaps he holds someone they care about hostage, or has some impenatrible defense. Find the hostage or pierce the defenses, then go to town on him.
Quote from: JamesVWell my starting point as far as the battle itself goes is that not every villain will kill off the party, maybe they'll just beat the crap out them, take their gear and sell them to slavers. Or maybe the bad guy will rip a page out of a Bond novel and set up a gruesome, over-elaborate, but avoidable trap to 'properly' kill the party, then leave for no good reason. Either way, I won't be afraid to impress upon the party that if they mess with the dire bull, they will get the horns.
That's good in some instances, but not in others.
RPGPundit
Quote from: SosthenesWhat's wrong with having a chat with your players, telling them that you don't stick slavishly to the CR mechanism?
Nothing, except that many players won't really listen and will remain internally convinced that they MUST defeat the enemy before them right now, and not let accept cutting their losses and living to fight another day; or they will be convinced that there's no way a villain can or should escape their grasp.
RPGPundit
Then maybe, just maybe, that's the kind of game your players want to have: one where they have a shot at killing every enemy they run across.
There are worse fates than Monster of the Week; Ultraman does pretty well with it.
Quote from: RPGPunditNothing, except that many players won't really listen and will remain internally convinced that they MUST defeat the enemy before them right now, and not let accept cutting their losses and living to fight another day; or they will be convinced that there's no way a villain can or should escape their grasp.
Then that's a sign of a deeper problem. If the rules are the only thing that determines the gameplay, you'd have to adjust them for every different setting or even for every particular adventure style (e.g. horror). That's certainly possible, as the abundance of rule systems shows, but not really a practical solution, IMHO.
If the players are really that bound to a gaming system, some educational measures are needed. Exaggeration might be useful. Let them start in some kind of adventure where the enemy is so clearly beyond them that they'll notice. Something that's not subtle at all. A duo of pit fiends could be walking by. That's basically the definiton of high CR, so if they're level 2, they can't be that daft. If they are, let the pit fiend ride a wyrm red dragon...
If need be, killing the players might prove educational, lots of DMs tend to shy away from that. Or maybe you could have a high-level NPC with impressive abilities accompany them. Say, a wizard. Then a big monsters turns up -- a balor maybe? And this monster kills the NPC.
D&D has lots of "Oh shit!" monsters which are very useful in this respect. Beholders, mind flayers, dragons, tarrasques...
Quote from: RPGPunditNothing, except that many players won't really listen and will remain internally convinced that they MUST defeat the enemy before them right now, and not let accept cutting their losses and living to fight another day; or they will be convinced that there's no way a villain can or should escape their grasp.
RPGPundit
Which says a lot about your players and not d20 - unless your players don't behave this way with other systems. They are plenty of tips in the recurring villain thread, which means precious little if the folks you game believe that the only option in a fight is well
a fight to the death - preferbly the bad guys'
The solution is simple. Forget about slavishly following the combat/challenge ratings and do what you did before.
Regards,
David R
I've seen this outside of 3e and before 3e was a twinkle in WotC's eye.
As for CRs, they're not something I would use but they are a tool. A few times I have in various games inadvertently presented a threat which was much deadlier than I realised. CRs are just a tool to help avoid that error, so that if you have a massively deadly foe you know you do, it's not just because you made a mistake statting up the enemy.
Equally, I've sometimes statted up supposedly deadly foes who due to an error on my part were in fact rather wimpy, CR is a mechanism for helping avoid that problem too. If you use CR to make every encounter balanced, that's a GM fault, not a CR fault.
Just to clarify, I do not and have not EVER followed the CR ratings.
But the thing is my players do not just play in my games; they have experienced D&D and obviously been affected by the "game challenges must be balanced" meme.
So my complaint isn't specifically about D&D, its about a mentality that has seeped into RPGs.
The last two occasions where it really struck me that this happened with trying to take down an opponent who was way out of their league was one in a True20 game and one in a WFRP. And the last where players would simply refuse to accept an opponent getting away from them was in a WFRP game, a supers game being played with the Star Wars D20 rules, and a True20 game.
Or, in other words, my recent campaigns. And note that while I have many players that play two of my campaigns at once, none of the three campaigns mentioned are actually the same group, they are all varied groups that ended up having the same phenomenon happening.
RPGPundit
I think this problem actually goes back to the situation we discussed a while back about how D&D gameplay seems to have shifted from strategic to tactical thinking.
Also, as character generation has become a bigger and bigger investment over several editions it now becomes much more work to generate a replacement character. This leads to some players presuming that DMs aren't supposed to wantonly kill their characters.
Another piece of the puzzle comes from the relatively linear nature of dungeons. The DM generally spoonfeeds the senario, and being in an environment that was purposely choosen for issolation from a wide player driven selection you tend to get that powerband.
Now turn those people loose in environments like cities. That's a totally different vibe. If you try to run it like a dungeon the players are likely to feel like they are mounted on steelrails rolling through some crappy carnival "funhouse". But turn them loose and they should find things that are both below their power or could kick their ass. So you have a lack of player experience with running into things that could kick their ass. I've seen this more than once with players that have never played outside of a scripted dungeon. There are some people that just have a really, really, really hard time wrapping their head around it. Sometimes because they don't want to put the effort into it, they just want to be able to smashie smash whatever is put in front of them. *shrug*
"...the light and space of Vietnam really put the zap on his head." - Cpt. Willard
Another reason I believe is that it requires better communication between the GM and players. PC dies because of a GM-player communication fuckup? Especially in those longrunning campaigns with longlived (in RL terms) PCs? Well that can lead to some really hard feelings. So the path of least effort becomes to make it all fightable, especially with a combat orientated game like D&D.
Quote from: jrientsAlso, as character generation has become a bigger and bigger investment over several editions it now becomes much more work to generate a replacement character.
I don't really get that? I suppose if you are openning up all the bazillion supplement books to try tweak out that way. Mostly the Feats. But generally I find it just as easy, if not easier to put together a 3e/3.5 character than an AD&D one.
Oh, and to answer the initial question I would, depending on how good of terms you are with your players and how much they have invested in the characters, just let the dice fall where they may and snuff a few PCs if it comes to that. Just make sure you are on a good communication terms with them so they don't get that screwed with feeling. *shrug*
Quote from: blakkieI don't really get that? I suppose if you are openning up all the bazillion supplement books to try tweak out that way. Mostly the Feats. But generally I find it just as easy, if not easier to put together a 3e/3.5 character than an AD&D one.
What decisions do you have to make with a 1st edition fighter? You pick your race. Maybe you get to rearrange your stats rolls, if the DM is kind. You get to pick four weapon proficiencies. Possibly you get one or more bonus languages. And you buy equipment.
Even without the use of a half-dozen or more supplements, a 3.x character involves more work. Stat tweaking becomes a fine art, especially as it ties into feat-planning. The sharper players tend to plan out 20 levels in advance so they don't screw up a feat tree or prestige class pre-reqs. Simply picking one or two or three feats can be a pain. Skills need to be bought. the equipment list is longer and even selecting you weapon of choice involves more considerations.
And when you compare building 3.x PCs to something like the RC or its predecessors the contrast become even starker.
I think the key is letting the players fail without actually *killing* all the characters. There are some higher level spells that take characters out of commission without killing them that can be useful in this regard: Binding, Irresistable Dance, Power Word Stun...
Quickly taking characters out of commission (without killing them) will let the players know they're out of their league -- and if they don't get the lesson you can ramp up the lethality until they DO. ;)
If you just want the villain to escape, both the Teleport spell and Boots of Teleportation make this fairly straight forward.
QuoteLet's say the party decides to run away. If the rogue and fighter are between the troll and the sorcerer, what do they do? They can stand and fight for another round, or delay, but the troll might eat them. If they run, the troll goes next and attacks the sorcerer.
I think the CR system does contribute to situations where the party doesn't run, but I also think the system does things to make running away hard to do. On top of that, it falls to the DM to give the player enough information to make an informed decision before the party commits to the fight.
I'm very happy with the way following and fleeing work in my game. It handles this situation fairly nicely. Hopefully everything will be wrapped up by Christmas and you can let me know what you think yourselves. :)
Quote from: mearlsI think the CR system does contribute to situations where the party doesn't run, but I also think the system does things to make running away hard to do.
I think that's a really good point, and it's something that I've noticed in my group, too.
Another factor is, for instance, when one character gets killed early on. The other players won't want to leave that character's corpse behind for a few reasons. First, if they're high-level enough, they might want to raise him or her. Second, let's face it, there's a lot of loot on that guy! That may seriously tilt the risk/reward balance. :)
I let my players know in my current game that there won't be anything balanced towards them. At all. It's up to them to figure out which challenges they can or can't stand up to.
-O
Last character death was last session, he was playing a wizard and got too close to the action. Player rolls up a new wizard that is a bit hardier than his last one and he's happy. They don't run away because frankly (and I really mean this) I think they just like rolling up new PC's.
Quote from: fonkaygarryThen maybe, just maybe, that's the kind of game your players want to have: one where they have a shot at killing every enemy they run across.
There are worse fates than Monster of the Week; Ultraman does pretty well with it.
I've got to agree with this. The premise of this thread is "My players don't behave the way I want to -- how do I change them?" That's a tricky premise in the first place.
I think a better approach is to consider a compromise. You don't like the present situation, but you should look at it as coming to a compromise between what you want and what they want. For example, are there changes which would make the PCs never running away more fun for you? What are you looking for exactly?
As a player who has often made the mistake of going after too-powerful foes, I can say there is a point where it becomes more frustrating to let the villain get away than it will be when your character dies...
That said, I've gone out in some rather glorious kamikaze explosions. Chief among them destroying the train with both myself and the villain on it. In the first session.
Quote from: mearlsI wonder how much of the issue is in an encounter's set up.
One of the hard things about the fight that the PCs can't win is that when the players realize they can't win, it's too late for them to run. Or, they at least feel that way.
The problem here is that CR is a behind the scenes benchmark, not a "visual" one. So player have no way of knowing, especially if a creature is of a sort that is not typically easy to benchmark (classed creatures).
I think the solution here is to consciously give examples of what they are dealing with. As star trek used to... by (as in TOS) slagging anyone other than scotty wearing a red shirt or (in TNG) beating up the toughest guy to show something that is tougher.
There are some built in benchmarks players will recognize, like the effects of certain spells or certain well known creatures. But lacking that, you have to communicate they are in over their head.
Kill/beat the PCs mentor, or a former or current adversary they knew to be tough. Leave behind corspes of creatures the players know to be a challenge for them ("whatdya mean they carved a path through the beholder enclave?")
QuoteI think this problem actually goes back to the situation we discussed a while back about how D&D gameplay seems to have shifted from strategic to tactical thinking.
That nails it. That´s what it´s all about. Still I think 3.5 is versatile enough for strategic gameplay, albeit published adventures are not.
Quote from: StuartI think the key is letting the players fail without actually *killing* all the characters. There are some higher level spells that take characters out of commission without killing them that can be useful in this regard: Binding, Irresistable Dance, Power Word Stun...
Yes, but this can open up another can of worms, or more accurately, it doesn't resolve the existing one: namely, if characters believe that the GM will spare them from actual character death if they fail, this will make them MORE prone to charging in and fighting, because they feel sure they have nothing to lose for trying.
QuoteQuickly taking characters out of commission (without killing them) will let the players know they're out of their league -- and if they don't get the lesson you can ramp up the lethality until they DO. ;)
Yes, ultimately this seems to be the only viable solution.
QuoteIf you just want the villain to escape, both the Teleport spell and Boots of Teleportation make this fairly straight forward.
works in D&D and a few other games but not always.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditYes, but this can open up another can of worms, or more accurately, it doesn't resolve the existing one: namely, if characters believe that the GM will spare them from actual character death if they fail, this will make them MORE prone to charging in and fighting, because they feel sure they have nothing to lose for trying.
I've found that the best way to deal with that is to occasionally demonstrate that you
will kill characters.
Quote from: jrientsWhat decisions do you have to make with a 1st edition fighter? You pick your race. Maybe you get to rearrange your stats rolls, if the DM is kind. You get to pick four weapon proficiencies. Possibly you get one or more bonus languages. And you buy equipment.
A straight fighter is the one class where there can be a
slight difference. But at 1st level, basically none at all. At higher level a bit, but Feats generally are in clumps because of the dependancies. Factor in the better character creation tools and basically it's a wash. Sure the tools don't make it a 'fair' comparison of the rules, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I agree that it's probably caused by D&D in how scenarios and the like are always geared to level challenges at the players that they can overcome (and who didn't cut their teeth on D&D?). Plus, if CRPGs are in the mix, they do the same thing. I wouldn't call out d20 for that too much, the behavior that "Challenge Ratings" produces was in place way back in the days of early D&D modules: Scenarios and adventures basically reinforced the idea of "everything that is presented here Can Be Fought or Overcome, Here and Now". Not new to d20, and probably applicable to any game that had scenarios or pre-planned adventures.
In Scenarios, there's ALWAYS a way around anything encountered. It is very problematic when the GM wants to put in a piece of exposition or something, having some element that the characters clearly can't take on. Period.
So what happens then? I have the same thing in my weekly group:
If I pop in a threatening NPC or similar event (the "big bad battlestar ship shows up: What do you do in your little skiff-ship?"), the reaction (mentally, you can read it on their faces) is:
* Shit, that looks bad.
* But the GM brought it out. That means it can be Overcome.
* Even if we can't beat it in a straight fight, there's got to be Some Trick.
* Because the GM brought it out, there's gotta be a way to defeat it. If we don't see how, it's cause we're not looking hard enough. The GM's obviously got something in mind, we just have to figure out what it is.
And this goes on and on, trained by years of crappy GMs or scenario-style play (not just D&D mind you, but Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, fuck just about any game that encourages Scenario-style play).
When I put my players in an untenable situation, their characters will "look around", examining everything like it was an Infocom game, looking for the Secret Word or whatever that will immediately topple this huge foe or oncoming catastrophe.
So what do I do as GM? I drop the veil.
"Seriously, guys, this looks bad. You have the feeling that there's no way you're going to be able to take him on, at least not now[/i].
It might be a cop-out, simply assuming that this was a railroaded encounter designed to Make Them Run Away. But I like to think it's giving them an escape route, especially when they just aren't doing Anything At All.
There was a great article back when I subsribed to Pyramid. It was about how the author collected all of the TORG supplements ever made, and ran this first adventure for an ongoing campaign. It died that night, because the GM set them up with this retarded near-impossible Word Puzzle, and for some reason (the author of course was like, "Yeah, I have no clue why the fuck I did that; I totally wasn't thinking") just never gave them a hint.
If that was me, I'd know by now that I either have to drop them a fat fucking spoiler to get on with the Real Roleplaying Fun, or give them clear options to get past whatever was blocking them ("Hey, you could always run away, or get more information from a nearby dude, or even just rig the thing with explosives or whatever; I don't have a 'solution' in mind here, guys, so whatever you want to do is cool with me").
Some people look for ways to encourage this behavior without dropping that veil and addressing the players mano-a-mano. But sometimes it's the only way to bypass that hard-wired behavior based on years of gaming with that "The GM will only present Challenges that can be Overcome" mindset.
-Andy
QuoteI wouldn't call out d20 for that too much, the behavior that "Challenge Ratings" produces was in place way back in the days of early D&D modules: Scenarios and adventures basically reinforced the idea of "everything that is presented here Can Be Fought or Overcome, Here and Now".
I do think stuff like against the giants or Keep on the borderlands really were different. They totally depend on running and coming back, being creative, waging a guerilla war on the site-based creatures.
Sure, even in the early days CR was there in the guise of HD and was modified by the special abilities, at least it´s ther in th RC. And sure there were early adventures where every encounter was to be overcome. But there also were strategic modules, no?
Haven´t seen a Against the Giants style strategic challenge in quie some time. Have you?
Quote from: SettembriniHaven´t seen a Against the Giants style strategic challenge in quie some time. Have you?
Never played that one myself. But... hmmm... Maybe the original Ravenloft adventure, revised for AD&D 2e then again for 3.5 recently? That one requires you to basically think tactically about how you go after Strahd, all the while collecting the McGuffins to defeat him.
But even then, the Players know (or have a good idea) that Strahd is just too powerful, which is why they need to collect the Sun Sword and other related magic items. It would probably be more telling if the players didn't know up front that they had to collect McGuffins the first 1-2 times they encountered Strahd.
-Andy
Quote from: blakkieA straight fighter is the one class where there can be a slight difference. But at 1st level, basically none at all. At higher level a bit, but Feats generally are in clumps because of the dependancies. Factor in the better character creation tools and basically it's a wash. Sure the tools don't make it a 'fair' comparison of the rules, but that's not what I'm talking about.
Dude, a 1st level fighter is one of the places where 3.x is going to look the best in comparison to most other editions. If I build a thief and you build a rogue, how much time will I spend buying skills? A first level MU in AD&D gets his spells assigned randomly, wizards have to pick your own in 3.5.
And I dare you to open the PHB to the big feats chart and ask a newbie to pick out two or three. Have a stopwatch ready. I want to know how long it takes them to settle on their starting feats.
Later editions of D&D tend to make replacing dead characters a bigger pain in the ass. These mechanical differences alter the relationship between the DM and the players. I can run a 10th level game of Basic/Expert D&D and see completed replacement characters enter play within 20 minutes. Starting from scratch, could most 3.x players build a solid, complete 10th level character and be up and running before the session ends? I seriously doubt it. I think it would be more accurate to state that if you bite it and can't get a quick
raise dead, your 3.5 player is left with the following choices:
- Play a cohort or some other NPC
- Play a half-assed incomplete replacement NPC
- Sit around working on a replacement PC while everyone else gets to play
All of these are suboptimal choices for most players.
So I think my point remains. In earlier editions DMs can kill with impunity because PC life is cheap and replaceable. In later editions the relative investment in character creation is increased, so the value of PC life is higher. To say that's not going to affect play is to deny the basic economics of the situation.
My players generally like to stick around and fight, they'll run when they realize that the fight is too big, but by that time it's usually too late for one or two of them resulting in a character death. I'll let them roll up a new one at the same level. I mean at least they tried to get the hell out of the situation.
Am I a big softie? A big squishy marshmallow of a DM?
Quote from: jrientsDude, a 1st level fighter is one of the places where 3.x is going to look the best in comparison to most other editions. If I build a thief and you build a rogue, how much time will I spend buying skills? A first level MU in AD&D gets his spells assigned randomly, wizards have to pick your own in 3.5.
DUUUDE! 1e has thief skills to buy up. Thanks to 3e's encouragement of min/maxing of Skills it's just as quick to pick out skills for Rogues.
QuoteStarting from scratch, could most 3.x players build a solid, complete 10th level character and be up and running before the session ends?
Using the character generator program? 10-20 minute knockoff to print, and another 5 minutes touching up for magical items. Seriously. Spell selection is by far the toughest part. Especially for mages, and that isn't really a change.
P.S. Face it, the mechanical side of character creation remains a
tiny portion of the investment in a character once that character gets into play. Sure there are some people that pour and pour over characters and tweak and twiddle. But that isn't just the mechanical bit they are slaving over, it's coordination with other players, trying on concepts, etc. Some new people to the game will put a lot of time in trying to find that "optimal", but once you are familiar with the rules?
QuoteDUUUDE! 1e has thief skills to buy up. Thanks to 3e's encouragement of min/maxing of Skills it's just as quick to pick out skills for Rogues.
Incorrect. All 1st edition AD&D thieves have the exact same skill set, unless you're one of those dirty hippies that uses the survival guides. But if we're going to talk about later supplements then the Complete books come into play and again 3.x looks worse in comparison.
QuoteP.S. Face it, the mechanical side of character creation remains a tiny portion of the investment in a character once that character gets into play.
...says one obsessed message-boarding fan to another obsessed message-boarding fan. I don't think your flip dismissal of the mechanic questions holds up with regular players. Over the years I've spent lots of time nursemaiding people through chargen and combat and lotsa other tricky mechanical questions and
I'm not even a mechanics wonk. There's probably a hundred stonger mechanicians on this board and a thousand on EnWorld. But for the purposes of finding the lay of the land in the realm of Actual Play those guys don't count for that much.
Quote from: jrientsIncorrect. All 1st edition AD&D thieves have the exact same skill set, unless you're one of those dirty hippies that uses the survival guides.
You still had to calculate and set them and scratch them into the character sheet.
Quote...says one obsessed message-boarding fan to another obsessed message-boarding fan. I don't think your flip dismissal of the mechanic questions holds up with regular players. Over the years I've spent lots of time nursemaiding people through chargen and combat and lotsa other tricky mechanical questions and I'm not even a mechanics wonk. There's probably a hundred stonger mechanicians on this board and a thousand on EnWorld. But for the purposes of finding the lay of the land in the realm of Actual Play those guys don't count for that much.
....which is where the character generator program comes in. Or they just pass it off to the local munchkin who whips off a character on order. Which means the player basically has
no mechanical investment in the character.
EDIT: Rolling up the character? Depending on your method of choice that's a chore in and of itself.
Quote....which is where the character generator program comes in. Or they just pass it off to the local munchkin who whips off a character on order. Which means the player basically has no mechanical investment in the character.
Of course you're right. If I have ubermunchkin handy or a PC next to the game table the burdens of character creation are lessened. Which means that for players who do not have those options handy you've just proved my point for me.
Quote from: jrientsOf course you're right. If I have ubermunchkin handy or a PC next to the game table the burdens of character creation are lessened. Which means that for players who do not have those options handy you've just proved my point for me.
:rolleyes: No, I certainly didn't. Because that's what happened before too...if it was available and the player cared about it and they hadn't bothered to learn the rules to depth. There really hasn't been any meaningful change between the systems that way.
Quote from: jrientsOf course you're right. If I have ubermunchkin handy or a PC next to the game table the burdens of character creation are lessened. Which means that for players who do not have those options handy you've just proved my point for me.
:rolleyes: No, I certainly didn't. Because that's what happened before too...if it was available and the player cared about it and they hadn't bothered to learn the rules to depth. There really hasn't been any meaningful change between the systems that way.
What there has been a change in is a wider range of options. But getting there isn't really harder, which I think speaks to the polish and quality of 3e.
No need to roll your eyes at me twice!
Quote from: jrientsNo need to roll your eyes at me twice!
Need? Nah, but you've
earned more than that. :rolleyes:
:mischief:
Quote from: blakkieNeed? Nah, but you've earned more than that. :rolleyes:
:mischief:
Heh. I still disagree with you, but I think we're talking past each other at this point, so dropping silly smilies seems like a better use of our time.
:melodramatic: "Oh why can't poor deluded blakkie see that I'm right and he's wrong?"
:hmm: "Is it worth the effort to build exhaustive chargen decision trees to prove such a niggling point?"
:emot-taco: "Man, I'm hungry."
Quote from: jrients:hmm: "Is it worth the effort to build exhaustive chargen decision trees to prove such a niggling point?"
Since you'd be much more successful at a less hopeless endevor (since it would be like trying to prove the earth flat) such as hitchhiking down to Taco Bell for lunch, I think you should make a run for the border! :emot-taco:
Quote from: RPGPunditBut how the fuck to deal with these kinds of things without being all railroady?
Whenever the players start to attack a threat way above their capabilities, pull out a stack of blank character sheets.
"Just in case, you understand..."