Healing surges and other such fail.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:13 am

No, I'm pointing out that when a PC has no reason to suspect that he's better able to survive than anyone else (he's wearing the same level of armor, he's as far as he knows about as tough and experienced and everything else), but "miraculously" survives...time and after time...it is damn hard for him to take it seriously that he's in as much danger.

Maybe he'd treat it as "lucky" rather than "I'm invulnerable", but it would become painfully obvious.

And when it happens again and again and again and again and again and again and again, even when he "pushes his luck"...

As stated, I wouldn't consider bullets to be something to be scared of in his shoes.

They'd be loud and annoying. But I'd have a very hard time feeling that combat is Scary...either I'm invulnerable, or I'm incredibly lucky, but it is much less frightening in terms of my personal safety than it is for those of my companions who are dropping.

Again, metagaming has nothing to do with it. Stop assuming PCs are oblivious enough to fail to recognize that by some strange chance they're not getting as badly hurt even though they're in the same situation and that only a metagamer would be able to tell.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:29 am

Psychic Robot wrote:The game is not an EITHER "disposable characters" OR "not-dead characters" dichotomy.

People die in heroic fantasy but its always meaningful and plot important. They don't get randomly popped like the 3e rules suggest. If you don't want disposable characters then random deaths have to go.

What there probably should be is an option for a heroic death if an encounter goes tits up. Its pretty common for someone to hold off the enemies and yell "run". That is an actual heroic death, as opposed to the 3e crap where you randomly die. The other thing to do is remove res spells. Heroic sacrifice is not possible if coming back from the dead is less than 3 level 9 spell slots since there wasn't really a sacrifice.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:35 am

Random is (generally) stupid, though there ought to be a risk of death even when it isn't "plot important"...since we want to have free will and the ability to avoid being railroaded, we should deal with the fact that puts characters at more risk than if all their actions were carefully steered by the guy who knows the mine field.

I'm not against there being methods of ensuring "saved by the skin of your teeth" survival (as long as NPCs also get them), because dice doom is neither realistic or dramatic or even fun...you tend to die because in one way or another you got over your head ( if you're one of the people who is an example of anything at all equivalant to heroic fantasy characters).

Its just an unfortunate fact that "safe" and "lethal combat" are mutually exclusive terms.

So, ideally:

Any fight with weaker opponents: Probably possible to avoid serious injury, death unlikely unless things go Really Wrong. Opponents with heavy firepower, see below.

Any fight with equals: Can kill you. You should not take fights like this lightly.

Any fight with superiors: Look, if you're fighting Darth Vader while still in training, Luke, you're asking to get your butt kicked. Be grateful it was your hand and not your head.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:40 am

Elennsar wrote:No, I'm pointing out that when a PC has no reason to suspect that he's better able to survive than anyone else (he's wearing the same level of armor, he's as far as he knows about as tough and experienced and everything else), but "miraculously" survives...time and after time...it is damn hard for him to take it seriously that he's in as much danger.

Maybe he'd treat it as "lucky" rather than "I'm invulnerable", but it would become painfully obvious.

And when it happens again and again and again and again and again and again and again, even when he "pushes his luck"...

As stated, I wouldn't consider bullets to be something to be scared of in his shoes.

They'd be loud and annoying. But I'd have a very hard time feeling that combat is Scary...either I'm invulnerable, or I'm incredibly lucky, but it is much less frightening in terms of my personal safety than it is for those of my companions who are dropping.

Again, metagaming has nothing to do with it. Stop assuming PCs are oblivious enough to fail to recognize that by some strange chance they're not getting as badly hurt even though they're in the same situation and that only a metagamer would be able to tell.

Read up on real wars, and real soldiers. Maybe start with the histories of the medal of honor recipients, then go into personal accounts of survivors of wars. Then maybe you'll realize that your view is, as usual, very "unusual", and most soldiers don't think they're invulnerable just because they have survived so far.

Untill you drop the idea that anyone sane would think "Oh, I survived so far, I will survive whatever they throw at me" in the face of others dieing there's no point in talking to you further.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:47 am

Tell me that you genuinely think you would genuinely be frightened if you found that things that were killing your buddies right and left were not leaving you scratched, and that kept happening over and over and over and over again.

My views may be unusual at times, but the idea that someone would be just as afraid of getting killed after surviving a hundred battles without a scratch as when first facing battle is, barring the point of thinking one's "luck will run out" (which is strengthened by the fact it usually does), a bit absurd.

Apparent invulnerability encourages overconfidence. Actual invulnerability, unfortunately, makes that justified.

Now, here is the question. If a character is hit by an artillery shell/500 pound boulder/ground zero of a major explosion/etc. (something in which it would be starkly unbelievable for a human to survive, how do you handle that? Do you say "well, in that case, I guess they would be dead." and only then deal with character death? Do you have "fate points" to "well, actually, he wasn't there when it exploded." kind of things?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:25 am

Elennsar wrote:Tell me that you genuinely think you would genuinely be frightened if you found that things that were killing your buddies right and left were not leaving you scratched, and that kept happening over and over and over and over again.

Is this a trick question? Of course I am frightened of such things.

Elennsar wrote:My views may be unusual at times, but the idea that someone would be just as afraid of getting killed after surviving a hundred battles without a scratch as when first facing battle is, barring the point of thinking one's "luck will run out" (which is strengthened by the fact it usually does), a bit absurd.

The point you are barring is essential. You can't stipulate this away, and then complain that it's absurd people would be afraid if you take away the reason for their fear.

Elennsar wrote:Now, here is the question. If a character is hit by an artillery shell/500 pound boulder/ground zero of a major explosion/etc. (something in which it would be starkly unbelievable for a human to survive, how do you handle that? Do you say "well, in that case, I guess they would be dead." and only then deal with character death? Do you have "fate points" to "well, actually, he wasn't there when it exploded." kind of things?

It's "make a save to get out of the way. Failed? Use a fate point to make your save?" Then the boulder hits the ground/whoever did not get away.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:29 am

Is this a trick question? Of course I am frightened of such things.

So even though you are fucking invulnerable, for all that you can see, you'd be as as afraid as if you were actually in dire need of medical care or a miracle.

The point you are barring is essential. You can't stipulate this away, and then claim it's absurd people would be afraid if you take away the reason for their fear.

It is absurd, because the only reason people think their luck will run out is because it is more logical to conclude that it will, and going from 1-20 without it doing so makes that harder and harder to take seriously.

People have convinced themselves that they're immortal (in a world that doesn't grant that) with far less than that many examples of "should have killed but didn't".

I'm not sure they're sane, but they still believe it. And your proposal of just about eliminating PC death would make it so that you'd have to be deluded to think you're NOT beyond lucky.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:41 am

As I said - I do not play with people who think like you. And I am grateful for that each time I read one of your posts.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:44 am

Yeah, because people like me refuse to take it seriously that PCs are immune to death and don't agree to "but its not obvious" when it would be painfully obvious to any halfway observant character.

Too bad for your games that someone has to set things to "PCs are SPECIAL, NPCs ARE NOT" and "PCs are blind to the reality of how dangerous something is." to play.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:04 am

Elennsar wrote:Tell me that you genuinely think you would genuinely be frightened if you found that things that were killing your buddies right and left were not leaving you scratched, and that kept happening over and over and over and over again.

Whoah there! You just stepped into crazy town.

When you are a French Soldier fighting under Napoleon you are very likely to not get hit with a musket. Indeed, out of the 72,000 soldiers taken into Waterloo, only 25,000 of them actually got hit with a musket ball. And that was Napoleon's worst defeat!

If you are one of the people who marches into battle time and time again ad never catches a musket ball to the face, the correct conclusion is not that musket balls cannot hit you - it's that you have not been hit by a musket ball yet. Indeed, every single soldier on the line can say with certainty that they have yet to be shot and killed - but any of them who makes claim that they personally cannot be shot and killed in future battles is a fucking lunatic.

You just said the Gambler's Fallacy was logical and that selection bias was a good indicator of future performance. That's crazy talk.

-Username17

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:12 am

When it happens again and again and again and again and again and again and again and you keep not getting hurt, it becomes increasingly hard to take it seriously that you're going to get hurt.

There is a chance that when getting out of my chair in the next five minutes that I will trip. There is a chance that I will hurt myself if I trip. There is even a chance of it being serious.

The odds are miniscule, but theoretically possible.

Because I have never hurt myself falling after tripping getting out of my chair, there is no reason for me to suspect that it will happen in the next five minutes.

The PCs in a game of "PCs don't risk getting killed when in a typical encounter" can say the same damn thing with just as much confidence and accuracy despite the fact that in any situation known on Earth it would be, as you said, crazy talk.

Since I don't see that being prefaced by "if they take reasonable precautions and retreat when facing superior numbers" or something similar, it is firmly in the realm of "oblivious" to not notice that you are that damn unlikely to be hurt.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:55 am

Elennsar wrote:When it happens again and again and again and again and again and again and again and you keep not getting hurt, it becomes increasingly hard to take it seriously that you're going to get hurt.

Every soldier who you can talk to is still alive. Even ones who have been on the front line for years are still alive. Every. Single. Fucking. One of them. It's called selection bias. Those who got killed are no longer soldiers and you can't talk to them.

Every single soldier you will ever interview has at that moment a personal death history of zero deaths. When you talk to ten and twenty year veterans, they still personally have died zero fucking times. Ask them if it is rational for them to not take enemy fire seriously. Go ahead and fucking ask.

You ar making a completely insane argument. The fact that you personally have not died in more than twenty years of life does not in any way show that you're immortal.

-Username17

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:14 pm

No, and I am not claiming it does.

I am, however, pointing out that the odds of an event that can happen and has happened (me slipping when getting out of my chair) are very poor, and poor to the point that I can realistically list them as "not worth worrying about."

A PC who survives by virtue of the "every damn enemy is unable to kill them." rule can assert that they are unlikely to get killed, and unlike a soldier IRL who asserts that, has the actual fact that the creator of the universe (the DM) has set things up so that this is true to back that up.

If the chances were "very low but they could happen", then it would still be rational to take it seriously because 0.5% is high enough to potentially kill you.

0.0% on the other hand is not.

So either A) PCs are going to feel, quite justifiably, confident in their continued survival, or B) PCs are going to expect something that will never happen, for no reason other than that they're unable to tell that they have survived things that should have killed them OVER and OVER again.

If you set things up so that the chances of getting killed are about as high when facing orcs, ogres, giants, and dragons as they are for me walking to the bathroom, and the PCs do it dozens and scores and more of times, they have no damn reason to be afraid.

As stated, people have thought they were invincible in our world...the fact that they're wrong hasn't stopped them from getting that impression after a while, and D&D PCs are NOT wrong when you set it up so that the odds are 0%.

If you want to ensure PCs never fear combat, I can't think of a better set up than ensuring that they have nothing to fear.

If you want to ensure PCs have any reason to fear combat, there will hopefully be something other than not trusting that their "luck" will last.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:27 pm

Elennsar wrote:I am, however, pointing out that the odds of an event that can happen and has happened (me slipping when getting out of my chair) are very poor, and poor to the point that I can realistically list them as "not worth worrying about."

Do you personally fear death?

Yes or No.

-Username17

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:49 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: Do you personally fear death?

Yes or No.

-Username17

No for i am a

[/img]

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:59 pm

No.

I look upon it as an undesirable event, but speaking here and now "No."

I'm afraid of fire, I'm afraid of pain/suffering to some extent, and I'm not comfortable around jumpy dogs.

But the idea of "being dead" isn't scary. There are lots of scary things that require me to be alive and able to feel stimuli (or tell that there are none) that worry me a lot more than dying.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:17 pm

Elennsar wrote:So, ideally:

Any fight with weaker opponents: Probably possible to avoid serious injury, death unlikely unless things go Really Wrong. Opponents with heavy firepower, see below.

Any fight with equals: Can kill you. You should not take fights like this lightly.

Any fight with superiors: Look, if you're fighting Darth Vader while still in training, Luke, you're asking to get your butt kicked. Be grateful it was your hand and not your head.

The funny part is: This is D&D, but only if you rest before every battle.

If you fight your equals after fully resting in D&D, you have a 50% chance of dieing.

So clearly, what you mean by this is: Heroes should always rest before the final battle against the BBEG who is mechanically the equal of the whole party.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:20 pm

If they have the chance to do so, yes.

If it is clear that they need to (and can) do so, yes.

Unfortunately, "ideally" and "practically" don't match, and heroes often assume they're more capable then they really are/that they have to act NOW even if it is dangerous/etc.

In an ideal world, you'd be fully prepared before taking on the BBEG.

No heroic fantasy setting I know of presents you with a reliably "ideal world" situation.

Especially not when it comes to the BBEG.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:53 pm

Elennsar wrote:If they have the chance to do so, yes.

If it is clear that they need to (and can) do so, yes.

Unfortunately, "ideally" and "practically" don't match, and heroes often assume they're more capable then they really are/that they have to act NOW even if it is dangerous/etc.

In an ideal world, you'd be fully prepared before taking on the BBEG.

No heroic fantasy setting I know of presents you with a reliably "ideal world" situation.

Especially not when it comes to the BBEG.

So yes or no, "heroic" characters in D&D should rush in to face the BBEG without rest when they are short on spells HP?

Keep in mind, they have a 50% chance of TPK when fully rested. When not fully rested, that chance ascends very rapidly to 80-100%.

violence in the media · Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:44 pm

Maybe we should just have a step in character creation where you roll, using whatever statistics you want, how long any given character will survive for. Both sides are happy that way. You get to play a character until level X, knowing that you won't die, and yet you have an inescapable fate looming over your head reminding you of your character's mortality.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:39 pm

Brilliant!

I disgree wih Elennsar here, but I think he is making part of a good point. That is: metagaming is inescapable. Anyone who has played RPGs for any length of time, and who knows anything about the system, is going to be metagaming, if only subconsciously.

A skeleton isn't a threat at all past level 3 or so. But at level 1, it's a credible menace, especially in hordes. To Joe the Pig Farmer, it might as well be Death Incarnate, come to carry off his pigs to the Pigterlife.

But when the 5th-level fighter says "I'll handle the pack of skeletons; you guys deal with the necromancer," he's metagaming because the player knows the chances of a handful of skellies butchering his 5th-level fighter are slim to none.

A party who routinely defeats every enemy they encounter by whacking them repeatedly with pointy objects and bolts of unholy fire are going to be justified in expecting to beat any future threat by whacking them repeatedly. The only ways I see to avoid this are:

1) Be a far better storyteller than I, such that your description of Lord Dread the Dreadly actually scares them;

2) Break the suspension of disbelief utterly by flat-out telling the players, "Look, this guy's really tough. He has a good chance to kill you."

3) Have the PCs encounter foes prior to Lord Dread the Dreadly that put them at risk of death...not "Oops, we're slightly low on spells and at 60% health," but "Holy crap, we did it!"

I am in favor of option #3. Yes, you run the risk of killing PCs if things go poorly. Welcome to roleplaying.

Kaelik wrote:So yes or no, "heroic" characters in D&D should rush in to face the BBEG without rest when they are short on spells HP?

My answer is: it depends heavily on the circumstances. If it is at all feasible to rest and recover, then no. If the benefits outweigh the risks - for instance, if resting your give the BBEG time to murder the town and open a gate to the abyss, or assume Cosmic Power and become invulnerable - then yes, they should. Because heroes accept that they are likely to die in battle, and it is preferable to die fighting than to live as cowards.

Basically, you have to look at what you are risking by waiting an extra 6-8 hours. If it's "the princess remains chained up for another day," the hell with it - rest up. If it's "countless innocents die," the fact that you have to ask the question means you don't get the "hero" tag.

And I don't buy the arguement that your (potential) failure means X number of hypothetical future princesses remain unrescued. From a metagame standpoint, those princesses don't exist at this time. From an immersion standpoint - guess what? Unless you're a professional Princess-Rescuer, and you have a waiting list of princesses to rescue, then for all practical purposes those princesses don't exist at this time.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:08 am

Talisman wrote:And I don't buy the arguement that your (potential) failure means X number of hypothetical future princesses remain unrescued. From a metagame standpoint, those princesses don't exist at this time. From an immersion standpoint - guess what? Unless you're a professional Princess-Rescuer, and you have a waiting list of princesses to rescue, then for all practical purposes those princesses don't exist at this time.

AFAIK, your side's trying to push "saving people" as the hero's profession. The self-insertion part of gaining sex slaves in the process isn't something that I care for, but seemingly there most definitely is some amount of people of some kind left unsaved by a heroic death. And I hope your argument doesn't boil down to "But real heroes don't have to consider the future in their decisions!"

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:18 am

Bigode wrote:AFAIK, your side's trying to push "saving people" as the hero's profession. The self-insertion part of gaining sex slaves in the process isn't something that I care for, but seemingly there most definitely is some amount of people of some kind left unsaved by a heroic death. And I hope your argument doesn't boil down to "But real heroes don't have to consider the future in their decisions!"

You're misinterpreting my point here.

Let's assume you're a Heroic AdventurerTM, and you're on your way to save Princess Beautifulla before Lord Evil kills her at midnight. If the princess dies, Bad Stuff Happens. It's your job to save her and prevent this.

If you live, being a Heroic AdventurerTM, you will undoubtedly go on to save more princesses, duchesses, baronesses, and farmers' wives. That doesn't make saving this princess any less important, or in any way mitigate the Bad Stuff that will happen if she dies.

If you're constantly worried about the unspecified amount of indeterminate people who will may not be saved if you die, it seems that ultimately you will take fewer and fewer risks to your precious self, and thus actually save fewer and fewer people because of your refusal to take risks.

Also, I remind you (and yes, it's metagaming) that if your character dies, those hypothetical future princesses may never exist.

Edit: I have no idea what you're referring to with the "sex slave" business.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:23 am

Talisman wrote:And I don't buy the arguement that your (potential) failure means X number of hypothetical future princesses remain unrescued. From a metagame standpoint, those princesses don't exist at this time. From an immersion standpoint - guess what? Unless you're a professional Princess-Rescuer, and you have a waiting list of princesses to rescue, then for all practical purposes those princesses don't exist at this time.

Technically, I believe that is Bigode's argument, not mine.

But thank you for your answer.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:25 am

The problem is, we live in the present. Whatever happens in the future is unknown. Maybe acting in a given way limits your chances of saving future princesses. Maybe it increases it.

The problem is, acting in a given way definately limits or increases your chance of saving this princess, who you are trying to save right here, right now.

So you have a 0% chance of saving the princess if you run away, and a chance that may be greater than 0% that you may be able to save future princesses in similar situations if you survive this one.

Until those situations come up, in which once again you have to face the chance of failing/dying and act or run away, they don't exist any more than your chances of dying of kidney failure from the victory banquet.

Presumably, "we wait until we're ready" has been addressed by circumstances as Talisman said. Rushing in when you have no chance of victory (which is very hard to determine in advance for the characters, even with the slight metagaming Talisman refers to) when you can wait is a bad idea.

Last I heard, however, Lord Dread the Dreadly didn't put signs around his castle saying "you have a 60% chance of dying if you fight me.", and if he did, how many heroes would believe those signs?

It is a staple of the genre that heroes don't, though not a requirement.