Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544473My experience with 4E was it was easier to avoid character death than previous editions (though to be fair it was pretty easy in 3e as well). The amount of healing seemed to blunt the danger. My experience with the game is somewhat limited so i wnt deny i could be wrong. It was never my major complaint about the edition but i my experienve of it and what i hear from friends who play and like it is it is a substantially less lethal game than say 1e or 2e (even 3e). But this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

This theory has been bantered around a lot re: video games, and the trend to much easier games than they were 20-30 years ago.

Quote from: Darwinism;544463Actually, monsters do more damage on average, which solves your first two points and your fourth, save-or-die is a stupid mechanic on both sides of the table because unless you're playing OD&D you get to go through a half-hour to an hour plus of chargen because of a single failed roll, rolled HP is a really really bad legacy mechanic that you don't see anymore because outside of people stockholmed into thinking it's ~*so great*~ it accomplishes nothing but presenting another barrier to entry.

Seriously, you present the idea that it's not as lethal because either you've never played it or you played it purposefully just to hate it more. I mean, come on, your spout of idiocy would be like me claiming that all OD&D could ever be was Fantasy Vietnam with 120 minutes of ambush setup before each 10 minute fight and that it was literally impossible to ever play it differently.

You make huge blanket statements based on a complete lack of any sort of knowledge and then try to place the burden of proof onto other people because you know you can't prove anything.

A couple things.

First, you accusing someone else of being disingenuous is really, really ironic.

Secondly, it's pretty much common knowledge that 4e is less lethal than previous editions, and explanations as to why are littered all over the internets.  If you are saying it's not, then it's up to You to prove otherwise.  If I say the sun is hot and you disagree, then it's not up to me to prove it so because pretty much everyone on the planet agrees with me.  It's on you to prove it's not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544503Secondly, it's pretty much common knowledge that 4e is less lethal than previous editions, and explanations as to why are littered all over the internets.  If you are saying it's not, then it's up to You to prove otherwise.  If I say the sun is hot and you disagree, then it's not up to me to prove it so because pretty much everyone on the planet agrees with me.  It's on you to prove it's not.

Wow, that's how debate works in your bizarro world? Because, seriously, if someone makes an assertion in the real world it's up to them to provide proof, it's not up to others to disprove. Otherwise you get intellectually dishonest, "Heh, here's my opinion, prove me wrong only no evidence you ever provide will ever be good enough because I'll just refuse to acknowledge anything," type statements seen on this forum and Intelligent Design debates.

Besides, 4E being less lethal is open to debate. Is it less lethal than OD&D? Yep, but so is pretty much every other edition. And the only actual evidence for/against it being less lethal is going to be anecdotal; looking at the mechanics doesn't change this because people here are simply doing a 1:1 comparison of 4E HP to 3E/2E HP which is pretty silly. You're comparing two different systems, with different average numbers for damage and health, and then claiming one is 'less lethal' because of bigger numbers.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544501This theory has been bantered around a lot re: video games, and the trend to much easier games than they were 20-30 years ago.

You know what made games 'difficult' 20-30 years ago? It wasn't actual difficulty; it was completely false difficulty such as clunky controls, attacks meant to drain lives (most early console games were heavily influenced, if not direct ports, of arcade games meant to make money), and so on. It's not so much that games have gotten easier as much as it is that games have stopped with the arcade model of trying to bleed quarters out of people. There are still some very punishing difficulty settings in most games, and they're not perfect (many are no more than more accurate enemies with bags of health), but it's loads better than Nintendo difficulty.

I gave WOTC feedback yesterday on D&D 5th.  So I look forward to the updates/changes they'll send out.

Quote from: Darwinism;544525Wow, that's how debate works in your bizarro world? Because, seriously, if someone makes an assertion in the real world it's up to them to provide proof, it's not up to others to disprove. Otherwise you get intellectually dishonest, "Heh, here's my opinion, prove me wrong only no evidence you ever provide will ever be good enough because I'll just refuse to acknowledge anything," type statements seen on this forum and Intelligent Design debates.

wow.  You really are a special kind of dumb.

"The sun is hot".
"Until you prove it, I don't believe you."

I mean, it's common accepted knowledge that 4e (and 3e) are less lethal than TSR era D&D.  Note I didn't say this is a bad thing, just that they are different.

And once again, you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is rich.  Speaking of, are you going to answer my question and explain to me how converting 4e to my preferred playstyle is just as easy as with any other edition?

QuoteBesides, 4E being less lethal is open to debate. Is it less lethal than OD&D? Yep, but so is pretty much every other edition. And the only actual evidence for/against it being less lethal is going to be anecdotal; looking at the mechanics doesn't change this because people here are simply doing a 1:1 comparison of 4E HP to 3E/2E HP which is pretty silly. You're comparing two different systems, with different average numbers for damage and health, and then claiming one is 'less lethal' because of bigger numbers.

No, it's not anecdotal.  We can easily measure the differences.  Take a level 1 character of each class from each edition, and have them do a mock combat with a level 1 monster and run the numbers.  Is it possible for a level 1 orc to kill a level 1 fighter in 4e with a normal, max damage attack?  Do characters in 4e automatically die if they fail a save vs poison?

This isn't rocket science.  It's easily measurable.

QuoteYou know what made games 'difficult' 20-30 years ago? It wasn't actual difficulty; it was completely false difficulty such as clunky controls, attacks meant to drain lives (most early console games were heavily influenced, if not direct ports, of arcade games meant to make money), and so on. It's not so much that games have gotten easier as much as it is that games have stopped with the arcade model of trying to bleed quarters out of people.

Practice what you preach.  Prove this.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544473My experience with 4E was it was easier to avoid character death than previous editions (though to be fair it was pretty easy in 3e as well). The amount of healing seemed to blunt the danger. My experience with the game is somewhat limited so i wnt deny i could be wrong. It was never my major complaint about the edition but i my experienve of it and what i hear from friends who play and like it is it is a substantially less lethal game than say 1e or 2e (even 3e). But this would seem to be by design. My impression was they wanted to keep the players in the game more, so it really isn't an attack to say it is less lethal (most 4e fans i know seem to prefer a less lethal system which is a perfectly legitimate preference).

Thing is that it's really easy for 4E to be lethal as all hell. But you, as a DM, know going in that it'll be one insanely lethal fight, you don't accidentally level your party because you're new to CR and you figured man it'd be cool to include some level 3 orcs with barbarian levels and a shaman with Glitterdust. 4E players might stay in the game longer, assuming combat encounters built to challenge but not overwhelm the players, but it's also very easy to build encounters that are incredibly lethal; healing surges are often a poor move to make, tactically, unless absolutely necessary, and other forms of healing can run out very quickly. Healers only get two heals an encounter at first, and a healing surge requires you to spend your standard - meaning you're not doing anything to reduce the damage you're taking.

Of course, DMs nearly never play monsters really smart. It'd just turn into both sides focus-firing down one target and moving to the next, which is logical to do but really boring and leads to tons of chargen in the middle of a session unless you've already planned for it.

Games play different depending on how the DM and party want to run them, 4E's just more clear in how combat encounters are built so you don't need a DM who's played for years to avoid insanely swingy encounters.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532wow.  You really are a special kind of dumb.

"The sun is hot".
"Until you prove it, I don't believe you."

I mean, it's common accepted knowledge that 4e (and 3e) are less lethal than TSR era D&D.  Note I didn't say this is a bad thing, just that they are different.

Yes, obviously, stating that something is common knowledge moves the onus of proof onto the other side! How could I have forgotten this debate method! I am sure, the next debate I am in, I will simply be able to claim, "Heh, it's common knowledge, now disprove me," and it will be a valid technique.

Seriously, OD&D was more lethal, but at the point of 2E AD&D you had -10 HP and people had many ways of mitigating damage; the majority of campaigns I've played in AD&D and boxed adventures, even the frigging Dark Sun ones, weren't high-lethality because the point is to play the game, not chargen.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532And once again, you accusing someone else of being intellectually dishonest is rich.  Speaking of, are you going to answer my question and explain to me how converting 4e to my preferred playstyle is just as easy as with any other edition?

Already did that! But, hey, it's cool. Reading is hard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532No, it's not anecdotal.  We can easily measure the differences.  Take a level 1 character of each class from each edition, and have them do a mock combat with a level 1 monster and run the numbers.  Is it possible for a level 1 orc to kill a level 1 fighter in 4e with a normal, max damage attack?  Do characters in 4e automatically die if they fail a save vs poison?

Oooh, good job redefining your position as soon as you're called out! So, only instant death amounts to lethality, then? Okay, sure, if you redefine lethality to be only instant death then yeah 4E is less lethal! Of course you do this by redefining lethality to include things that are explicitly not part of 4E, and by putting up false standards (why not a goblin? oh right not enough damage to take down a level 1 fighter, you had to choose orc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544532Practice what you preach.  Prove this.

Ever played Battletoads? Nearly impossible jumps, instant-death spike levels, the game being literally unplayable two-player, so on. Or the first Contra? Screens full of bullets, only three lives, no continues, almost everything in the game is one-hit instant death.

These are not things that constitute actual difficulty; no reasonable level of skill avoids them, you have to play by trial and error until you learn exactly what to do when. That's memorization, not skill.

Quote from: Darwinism;544538Yes, obviously, stating that something is common knowledge moves the onus of proof onto the other side! How could I have forgotten this debate method! I am sure, the next debate I am in, I will simply be able to claim, "Heh, it's common knowledge, now disprove me," and it will be a valid technique.

It is common knowledge, just because you don't think so doesn't mean it's not.  Jesus H Christ...

QuoteSeriously, OD&D was more lethal, but at the point of 2E AD&D you had -10 HP and people had many ways of mitigating damage; the majority of campaigns I've played in AD&D and boxed adventures, even the frigging Dark Sun ones, weren't high-lethality because the point is to play the game, not chargen.

Still more lethal than 4e.  Saying "2e wasn't as lethal as OD&D so 4e isn't less lethal than other editions" is one of the worst logical fallacies I've ever read on the internet.  Great job.  Who the fuck cares about 2e compared to OD&D.  We're talking about 4e compared to other editions, and I even gave you examples as to why.

QuoteAlready did that! But, hey, it's cool. Reading is hard.

NO you didn't.  You said, "how do you know where everyone is?  Just turn everything into mother may I and ignore most of the rules."  Nothing in there says or proves that converting 4e into my style is just as easy as other editions.  When you have to do the MOST changes to RAW, then it by definition isn't as easy as those editions where you don't have to throw out most of the rulebook.

QuoteOooh, good job redefining your position as soon as you're called out! So, only instant death amounts to lethality, then? Okay, sure, if you redefine lethality to be only instant death then yeah 4E is less lethal! Of course you do this by redefining lethality to include things that are explicitly not part of 4E, and by putting up false standards (why not a goblin? oh right not enough damage to take down a level 1 fighter, you had to choose orc).

What did I redefine?  Speaking of definitions, do you know what the definition of "lethal" is?

If a 1e character can die in one hit from a comparable creature when all things being equal (same character, same level of opponent) in 4e cannot result in a character dying form one hit, then by the very definition 4e is not as lethal as 1e as typically played.  Sure, you can throw a dragon at a level 1 party in 4e to make it lethal, but then you're not playing it as it is typically played.

Holy Christ on a cracker you have to be trolling because no one can be this legitimately retarded.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545Holy Christ on a cracker you have to be trolling because no one can be this legitimately retarded.

I'm glad you finally realized.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545NO you didn't.  You said, "how do you know where everyone is?  Just turn everything into mother may I and ignore most of the rules."  Nothing in there says or proves that converting 4e into my style is just as easy as other editions.  When you have to do the MOST changes to RAW, then it by definition isn't as easy as those editions where you don't have to throw out most of the rulebook.

It may be more difficult in some cases because of the large amount of movement effects for both players and creatures, but if you're cool with handwaving everything else that doesn't slow you down any more. When did I say to ignore the rules? I said you just rely entirely on the DM being nice to you and resolving things like flank/cover/whatever 'fairly' even though it's being utterly made-up on the spot.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545What did I redefine?  Speaking of definitions, do you know what the definition of "lethal" is?

You make a comment about lethality, I comment that 4E can be lethal, you immediately redefine 'lethal' to only include instant death in your examples. You never before stated that you only considered single attacks as lethal, because I was just going by the assumption that you meant combat!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544545If a 1e character can die in one hit from a comparable creature when all things being equal (same character, same level of opponent) in 4e cannot result in a character dying form one hit, then by the very definition 4e is not as lethal as 1e as typically played.  Sure, you can throw a dragon at a level 1 party in 4e to make it lethal, but then you're not playing it as it is typically played.

Except... you're playing different games. Sure, if you play 4E the exact same as 1E you're not going to get the same result. If your made-up definition of lethality is "only one creature versus one player" then yep I guess you're right! To achieve the same lethality in different games you actually have to realize that they're different games and adjust accordingly! And, christ, your example only works at low levels. You're not even being honest about that! Your example of prior editions being more lethal falls apart past like level 3. Because past that point you're nearly immune to instant death, barring the odd save-or-die (which I hardly ever see used against players if resurrection isn't a fairly easy option, making save-or-die simply save-or-sit-a-session-out-then-come-right-back. Hell, there are even defenses explicitly to counter save-or-dies! And they're pretty easy to get!

Quote from: Benoist;544551I'm glad you finally realized.

The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!" when it's nothing of the sort.

For one, nothing I have said is anti-4e.  It's simply saying that 4e is less than lethal compared to previous editions.  That doesn't make it a bad game because some people like it that way.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's not defending 4e that gets you labeled a troll.  It's when you adhere to an argument that is so easily shown to be false when you get that label.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544565The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!" when it's nothing of the sort.

We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Quote from: Darwinism;544563It may be more difficult in some cases because of the large amount of movement effects for both players and creatures, but if you're cool with handwaving everything else that doesn't slow you down any more. When did I say to ignore the rules? I said you just rely entirely on the DM being nice to you and resolving things like flank/cover/whatever 'fairly' even though it's being utterly made-up on the spot.

Relying on DM fiat instead of the rules literally means, "ignoring the rules."

wow...

QuoteYou make a comment about lethality, I comment that 4E can be lethal, you immediately redefine 'lethal' to only include instant death in your examples. You never before stated that you only considered single attacks as lethal, because I was just going by the assumption that you meant combat!

I never said 4e can't be lethal.  I said that it is less lethal than previous editions

QuoteExcept... you're playing different games. Sure, if you play 4E the exact same as 1E you're not going to get the same result. If your made-up definition of lethality is "only one creature versus one player" then yep I guess you're right! To achieve the same lethality in different games you actually have to realize that they're different games and adjust accordingly! And, christ, your example only works at low levels. You're not even being honest about that! Your example of prior editions being more/less lethal falls apart past like level 3.

Holy fuck.....

If all things are equal, and players play the game as typically played, then previous editions are more lethal.  You can't say "play 1e like you would play 4e, then it's the same" because that's not how 1e is typically played.

And no, I'm not talking just about low levels.  In fact, at high levels the disparity is even greater.  In 1e, you can still have a level 20 character die from a 1 HD snake in one bite.  Can you do that in 4e?  In 1e, a level 15 fighter can kill a level 15 MU in one hit.  Can you do that in 4e?

Fuck, you have completely missed the point the entire time of this thread.  And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Quote from: Benoist;544572We have quite a few people here who like 4e and don't behave like Darwindude and Scrotumjon here.

Dunno, mate. I think they've all been scared off.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;544565The sad thing is, is that this will be used by people to say, "See, at RPGSite, if you like 4e you'll be accused of trolling!"

That was yesterday.