Life was busy this pass week and I've left the poor blog by itself. Sigh. However it's time to pick it backup. Hopefully weeks like that will be few.
It's Friday, and time for my look around the web for comments/rants. This time a "4E and I are Done! " post caught my eye at Dungeon Mastering 101. It's a short and simple statement by AnthonyRoberson that he quits due to the simple fact that a Adult Red dragon can't possibly waste a 3rd level character with a single attack of his breath weapon.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Of course I also note that it's basically impossible to kill a 3rd level character the first stab of a dagger in any of the editions without recourse to special rules (backstab, helpless foe, etc). And I happen to know that people die from single stabs from small blades all the time.
But the nature of D&D hit points is that you're not hitting anything when you hit anyway. That Fighter didn't take 20 arrows to down him, it took 20 shots of which one finally solidly connected.
So D&D just ignores my problems with daggers. That's the nature of the game design. The interesting question is why does D&D's abstraction break at so many different points for different people. Why did it take a dragon for AnthonyRoberson to give up? Why not a Giant's club, a orge's, or even a common thug?
I guess people are driven by extremes. And I'll say this for 4E- it seems to be driven by extremes as well...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Of course I also not that it's basically impossible to kill a 3rd level character the first stab of a dagger in any of the editions without recourse to special rules
I've got a 3rd level magic-user in my current campaign who has only 3 hit points.
@Jeff Rients: Isn't that the very definition of the exception that proves the rule? :)
Course, even so. He'll go on without issue half the time unless the stabber has some damage bonuses.
On another note, characters like that remind me why I hate rolling for HP. Talking about keeping your bad luck with you forever, it can be much worse than low stat rolls.
A Con penalty is that player's whole problem in a nutshell. I can't recall at the moment if he's at -1 or -2, but as he put it Wednesday "without the minimum 1hp/level rule, my 3rd level MU would have zero hit points."
I don't see this as an exception, really. There's a vast conceptual space between your "basically impossible" and my "improbable but unfortunately possible". When using 3d6 in order plenty of characters will have Con penalties and rolling dice for hit points will get you some people with low numbers. And if I didn't use the optional variable weapon damage system that dagger would do d6 instead of d4 damage.
@Jeff Rients: Do you think that "improbable but unfortunately possible" instead of "basically impossible" alters the core point I made?
Or are we playing with unlikely exceptions that don't alter the affect or intent of the rules?
I will concede that at some level all characters become dagger proof and I was just being ornery. But I think there is a larger point to be had here in that escaping or defeating big scary dragons by the skin of your teeth has been a frequent D&D activity since the beginning, while being menaced by a beggar with a rusty shiv has not.
Ok, and I'll grant your point about big scary dragons vs. shiv armed beggars. This does represent a change of balance between the editions.
So is it for you the change of scale that's the issue? Because the logic (i.e. justification) is identical in both cases for an outsider such as myself.
One of my issues with 4E design, possibly the over-riding one, is the "extending the sweet spot" concept. The 4E design team seems to assume that an adventurers career should simply be the same thing scaled over levels. The non-threatening red dragon breath serves that goal, I guess.
For me, the change from "a dagger can kill me" to a "I can ignore those kobolds and concentrate on their ogre mage boss" is an important dynamic. Until 4E D&D has had phase shifts built into the rules. That's why the sacred cow "5th level magic-users can cast fireball for d6 damage per level" was important. Not because there's some special numerological significance to level 5, but because the phase shift from pre-fireball to post-fireball play acted as a milestone for the players. (And not 'milestone' in the useless bastardized sense 4E uses.)
We're talking about this stuff over on Grognardia right now.
@Jeff Rients: Is it really an issue of "Sweet Spot"?
I ask because Age of Heroes did that in 1980. Two characters of equal level set against each other would not see the course of a example battle change be they 1st level or 10th (or any inbetween).
But that's a different concept than saying that the type of foes and battles you encounter as you level doesn't change the course of your battles. That's seems like something else, related to 'repeatable experience'.
Repeatable experience was a concept I came across in a history of business class many years ago. Basically setting and maintaining an expectation in the customer.
I dunno. I'm not sure I'm following you. "Two characters of equal level set against each other would not see the course of a example battle change be they 1st level or 10th (or any inbetween)." seems like a useful design goal to me. HERO System is like that, I suppose. But I see HERO System and D&D on different points of a design spectrum. One end of the spectrum is rational and reductive, while the other end is design by irrational synergy. Maybe I'm talking nonsense at this point.
Okay... this is probably going to get me ostracized and outcast to stare at a corner with a dunce cap... but wouldn't it just be better to get rid of Level scaled hit points all together? It's like this humans whether they're a 18 year old dropout or a UFC champion all react relatively the same when you stick 6 inches of pointed metal into their belly. They also react relatively the same when you toss them in a furnace... so why not say that barring magical effects humans of the same size have the same hit-points? Then just establish that the difference in survivability comes from how each character class mitigates the damage. It would make having a group of PC's with a range of levels actually possible without the 3rd level being absolutely fucked alongside the 7th level.
@Jeff Rients: Here's my take on it-
HERO is the sum of rather simple (if numerous) building blocks that in various combination can recreate a large array of experiences.
D&D 4E is a sum of various individual mechanics and ideas (mostly 'chrome') that together create the D&D 4E experience.
@Helmsman: In point of fact, I agree with you. Which is why I abandoned D&D long ago.
But it should be remembered that D&D players in general just accept the abstraction of Hit Points using a number of different justifications for them.
Which is why I find posts like the one I referenced in the at DM 101 interesting. He based the wording of his objection on realism (of process to be exact), something he by the nature of D&D already should have accepted as a false objection.
Jeff here on the other hand nailed it- Dragons have been fearsome opponents in D&D before, and should always be so. Which is what I think the original poster likely was trying to say.
If you don't like the abstraction of hit points, try Palladium Games RECON. Set in Vietnam, and each character has a d100 for each attribute (there are 3). The Stamina (or something like it) attribute determines health. The catch is that weapons do a LOT of damage. A grenade is something like 2d6 x 10 damage. Survivable... mostly.
I remember making 3 or 4 character PER SESSION. It's nice to be able to model the ability to fight and take damage, but I like the idea of not being able to take very much.
Still, HP is a pretty agreed-upon convention for a vast range games, from computers to board games to all manner of RPGs. It ain't pretty, but it's what we've got.
Still, HP is a pretty agreed-upon convention for a vast range games, from computers to board games to all manner of RPGs. It ain't pretty, but it's what we've got.
I've never had a problem with HP. I think of it as an abstract but easy to understand mechanic for survivability. The running issue with RPG design is understanding the peculiarities of the rules you're using, because the always have some.
HP, as it was being used in D&D eds 1 - 3's peculiarity, which is shaping the DM 101 post is also it's most defining IMO. As HP escalates, the player's expectation of what types of encounters are deadly change as well.
Summing up this thread in my mind, changing someones expectations for a rule while essentially keeping the rules as is is gonna bother people, and where D&D is concerned a big divide between edition current to editions past.
I think that like HP or not, the reaction shows that some people become invested not in the mechanical concept and it's justification- but in the game as a game and if it matches memories of past play or not.
Well we're allready done our damage system in Hardkore and it doesn't have Hit Points in the damage mechanic, and I think it works pretty well, I hope people feel the same when they get to play it.
Post a Comment