The Difficulty in RPGs thread

[Kaelik]

And that's in the real world where livelihoods are on the line. This is an informal social activity for the purpose of entertainment, and it should be permissive when it comes to these issues.

Absolutely fucking not.

We should be more permissive when real people are being screwed by unconscionable activities in real life.

How willing we should be to enforce the rules should go up with the magnitude of the injustice of enforcing the rule.

Not enforcing a contract because it bankrupts someone should happen more often than not enforcing a contract because it shorts them one dollar.

Of course, as previously stated, there is nothing unconscionable about agreeing to play D&D under the default rules, and then having the default rules applied against you, just like the UCC default provisions are still enforced against people who didn't know about them and in hindsight don't want them, because they failed to modify the default provisions in the first place.

[fbmf]

This is completely and utterly inapplicable at a real world table.

No problem then. Frank and Lago don't talk about real world tables they talk about... well... who the fuck knows? But it isn't real world tables.

At my real world table, we play very similarly to the way Frank and Lago are advocating. The same core group of people have played for years. We expect character danger and death. When we bring in new people, we make the "campaign charter" clear (see Lago's suggestion). It has only ever been a problem with one guy, and the last time we gamed with him Dubya was in his first term.

Your way of gaming is fine. So is ours. What matters is from the first CharGen meeting the expectations be made clear to all involved.

Game On,
fbmf

[Lago PARANOIA]

Lago's the only one of the two who seems to be seriously arguing even for limitations on resurrection for PCs beyond, "it takes some time, and the villains get to do stuff".

Only, you know, I didn't. I said that I think that death and resurrection is too strict in D&D. Even though I still think that involuntary player death and even TPKs should happen. Like, one in 50 combats for the former and one in 30 campaigns for the latter. Which is considerably more lenient than the default assumptions in 3E D&D, given no DM pity.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Only, you know, I didn't. I said that I think that death and resurrection is too strict in D&D. Even though I still think that involuntary player death and even TPKs should happen. Like, one in 50 combats for the former and one in 30 campaigns for the latter. Which is considerably more lenient than the default assumptions in 3E D&D, given no DM pity.

Well, I might have been mistaken in my perception. (That doesn't make my statement incorrect, though, because my statement was that you seemed to be arguing for some limitations, not that you were definitely arguing for them.)

[Chamomile]

And once again Lago demonstrates his incapability to grasp even the very basic tenets of narrative, apparently totally incapable of understanding the differences between fiction and reality even as the culture he lives in is so well-versed in these differences that Terry Pratchett writes very successful books whose only gag is satirizing them.

As it happens, Lago, the world is packed full of stories where the good guys do not die. Ever. No matter how many clearly lethal situations they find themselves in, they never, ever actually die and in fact are never ever under any real threat of death. And most of those stories are, in fact, in the genre that D&D is in. There are a ton of fantasy stories where people just do not die, ever. The overwhelming majority, in fact. It's kind of a cliche. The kind of meatgrinder that D&D runs, where you can expect a character to bite it once every few adventures, is really weird in the context of the genre. Given the giant mountain of rules people are being asked to learn when they first pick up D&D, it is very common for people to not be paying attention when they first read the death rules, and to not realize that they're horrible until it comes up in play.

And the D&D death mechanics are not functional for the genre they were created in, and it is in fact very reasonable for a group which is not math-heavy or which just didn't carefully examine the rules prior to play to play through a game, reach the first untimely death, and realize that it is a terribad idea to die at -10 even when you have ~50 HP and enemy attacks regularly deal damage in the realm of 20 per hit. And then it is totally reasonable to change those rules because they are awful.

Honestly, does anyone here think that the Critical Existence Failure nonsense of 3e is a good idea? Assuming you are not huffing paint and agree that the "dead at -10" thing is a terrible non-scaling non-genre appropriate feature badly in need of being reworked, why on Earth would you flip the table with incoherent rage because someone put off reworking it until it came up in play?

[zugschef]

As it happens, Lago, the world is packed full of stories where the good guys do not die. Ever. No matter how many clearly lethal situations they find themselves in, they never, ever actually die and in fact are never ever under any real threat of death.

if they are never under real threat of death, then why does anybody bother with the story?

[fbmf]

Honestly, does anyone here think that the Critical Existence Failure nonsense of 3e is a good idea? Assuming you are not huffing paint and agree that the "dead at -10" thing is a terrible non-scaling non-genre appropriate feature badly in need of being reworked, why on Earth would you flip the table with incoherent rage because someone put off reworking it until it came up in play?

If by Critical Existence Failure you mean, "chance of character death, resurrecting is a thing" then yeah, I'm good with it.

This probably means you and I will never be able to play more than a 1 shot adventure together without hating each others game. I'm cool with that as:

(A) I've gamed with more or less the same folks for more than a decade (B) we all know each others expectations and definition of what constitutes a good time.
(C) you're not one of those people.

...so you and I will never have to game together at all and not have to have the LAGO CONVERSATION to hash out our differences.

See how neither one of us is having badwrongfun?

Game On,
fbmf

[RadiantPhoenix]

Honestly, does anyone here think that the Critical Existence Failure nonsense of 3e is a good idea? Assuming you are not huffing paint and agree that the "dead at -10" thing is a terrible non-scaling non-genre appropriate feature badly in need of being reworked, why on Earth would you flip the table with incoherent rage because someone put off reworking it until it came up in play?

If by Critical Existence Failure you mean, "chance of character death, resurrecting is a thing" then yeah, I'm good with it.

I thought CEF was about having a sharp threshold between 0HP and 1HP.

[Chamomile]

Critical Existence Failure means "go from just fine to completely dead in one blow." Usually brought up because it's ridiculous that being 1 HP away from total incapacitation has zero impact on your combat ability and that's weird, but in this case because it's basically impossible to reduce the players' total combat capability at all without also killing someone. Also, the earliest that a Raise Dead spell is available is level 9 which makes rezzing a fallen party member difficult if you're below level 5 or so (depending on setting assumptions), which is in fact a game that people play sometimes. Not to mention, even with Raise Dead you lose levels when you do that in RAW.

You could, of course, just set up the setting such that Raise Dead is available to basically all adventurers and house rule it so that there aren't actually any set backs to getting raised except the material cost or similar. Or maybe your group is just okay with having a dude be a level behind for a bit. That's far outside the norm for the genre that D&D is trying to emulate, but obviously if something is working for you then it's working for you. There's also groups for whom playing the core Fighter and Wizard in the same party is totally fine. And for whom 2e is playable at all. Good for them and all, but that doesn't mean there are not objective flaws with how these systems work.

[fbmf]

but in this case because it's basically impossible to reduce the players' total combat capability at all without also killing someone.

Are you for some reason discounting status effects?

Game On,
fbmf

[Kaelik]

That's far outside the norm for the genre that D&D is trying to emulate

No it isn't. Raise Dead exists in D&D, D&D exists to tell D&D stories. No one cares that you want to play Conan with a system that was not designed for you to play Conan.

[Mistborn]

And once again Lago demonstrates his incapability to grasp even the very basic tenets of narrative, apparently totally incapable of understanding the differences between fiction and reality even as the culture he lives in is so well-versed in these differences that Terry Pratchett writes very successful books whose only gag is satirizing them.

If you want a narrative read a fucking book. {insert overused LM meme here}

[Wrathzog]

As it happens, Lago, the world is packed full of stories where the good guys do not die. Ever. No matter how many clearly lethal situations they find themselves in, they never, ever actually die and in fact are never ever under any real threat of death. And most of those stories are, in fact, in the genre that D&D is in.

No, no they're not. If you want an accurate representation of a D&D PC in Non-Interactive fiction, then you need to look at Ned Stark from Game of Thrones.

Also, you seem to have a weird idea of what was intended for D&D because they go straight up against Gygaxian design principles... I think... that you may have no idea about what you're talking about.

[ishy]

I remember there being a lot of stories where at the start someone says:thousands of people have failed before you.
So if you die, just tell the story of person number 1000++

[Chamomile]

but in this case because it's basically impossible to reduce the players' total combat capability at all without also killing someone.

Are you for some reason discounting status effects?

Yes, that reason being that status effects are considered odd or add-ons. Except when they're things like "sleep" or "paralysis" or other words that really mean "death." There are plenty of monsters and classes who do not inflict any status effects at all. You could probably run an entire campaign where not a single monster ever once had any non-death-or-equivalent status afflictions available for use, and you could certainly run an entire campaign where the vast majority of opponents don't have them.

No, no they're not. If you want an accurate representation of a D&D PC in Non-Interactive fiction, then you need to look at Ned Stark from Game of Thrones.

Yeah, because D&D is bad at emulating the genre it explicitly tries to emulate. You remember those reading lists they used to have in old editions of D&D? You remember how those stories were completely impossible to tell with the actual D&D system? That is a flaw in the system, and its bizarre death mechanics are part of the problem. When people show up to a game of D&D, they usually want something like Conan or Lord of the Rings or, y'know, Drizz't novels.

[Wrathzog]

Please don't discount the idea that you were Lied to.
(protip: you were)

[Chamomile]

Yes, Wrathzog, you can explain away literally any discrepancy between the genre the game is supposed to emulate and what the rules actually say by pretending that D&D isn't really trying to emulate all those things it explicitly said it was trying to emulate. And using this argument, you can justify literally any design decision ever made just by plugging your ears and saying "but it's supposed to be like this!" Necromancers unplayable? That archeypte is meant for villains only! Wizard/Fighter imbalances? Well the magic guy is supposed to be better than the mundane! Race/class restrictions? Humans are supposed to be the most prominent race!

When you have made a theory of RPG design philosophy which justifies every conceivable design decision, you have created a worthless design philosophy.

[Dean]

Fuchs' position is literally that every player should get 100% of what they want, 100% of the time

This is an obvious strawman, his position is much more reasonable than that and you are aware of it. Stop doing Frank's Old School Fallacy Review.

If you are rolling dice, you really should accept the results. And if you are going to accept the results, you want the DM to be able to set of reasonable challenges for your adventures so that the grim laws of probability will not ensure your untimely death.

Ok, so what should those odds be? Because what you've just said, which Frank agreed with is literally the Elennsar problem. That name gets thrown around a lot but this is literally it. If you want probability to be set at a point so that your death doesn't come at an untimely occasion, that probability has to be set to 0%. If the odds of you dying in a fight are 2% (Using Lago's chosen numbers) and you have the supposed 4 fights a day and 13 fights a level the odds of you getting to the next level and not dying are as follows

1st- 100%
2nd- 77%
3rd- 59%

4th- 45%
5th- 35%
6th- 27%

7th- 20%
8th- 15%
9th- 12%

The odds of a given party member reaching the first level at which even Raise Dead can be cast without having died is 12%. The odds of TPK are incalculable unfortunately so that can't really be determined accurately, but the odds of untimely death are actually pretty considerable. Much higher than this tiny chart would even imply as dramatic or important fights are supposed to be much harder, increasing the chances considerably.

It's not that the notion of dying or losing in a game bothers me. What bothers me is the demonstrable break in the death rate people say they want for the game and the percent their actual characters and parties reportedly die. There is a clear discrepancy and what that implies to me is that when people say "I want 10% of combats to kill the PC's but my characters are really good so they can handle it" all they actually want is the feeling of accomplishment and the feeling of beating the odds that is at the heart of the FANTASY of D&D. But it is fantasy. And if people want one out of 100 combats to end the game they need their games to expect less than 100 combats. It is an either or proposition, not both. You cannot have your cake and eat it too with statistics.

If anyone actually wants to play under the odds they report (and understand, iterative probability being very hard for people) then enjoy. That's obviously fine and as Fbmf said different people can play differently and as long as people are having fun I consider that a success. But if the thing that people desire to have is the ability to say that the odds are real, they're stacked against them and they're WINNING ANYWAY then change your outlook. I'm fine with however people want to play what I don't like is the self delusion clearly inherent in a lot of the pro-death crowd.

if they are never under real threat of death, then why does anybody bother with the story?

I watched New Hope yesterday. I actually wasn't surprised the heroes won, but it was still an enjoyable story experience I willing chose to participate in. If you think really hard about your life you may find a time or two where you were able to get enjoyment out of a story without being constantly amazed that everyone was still breathing.

Finally. @Chamomile. I would start a different thread for that because Kaelik is around and his "D&D cannot and is not trying to emulate other canon" argument is, while obviously incorrect, something he will go shithouse about and he will not stop no matter what is said.

[Mask_De_H]

As it happens, Lago, the world is packed full of stories where the good guys do not die. Ever. No matter how many clearly lethal situations they find themselves in, they never, ever actually die and in fact are never ever under any real threat of death.

if they are never under real threat of death, then why does anybody bother with the story?

Because the threat of death isn't the only way to create suspense and tension in a story you simp.

[Red_Rob]

I watched New Hope yesterday. I actually wasn't surprised the heroes won, but it was still an enjoyable story experience I willing chose to participate in. If you think really hard about your life you may find a time or two where you were able to get enjoyment out of a story without being constantly amazed that everyone was still breathing.

The fact that in the end no-one died does not mean that noone could have died. There are several scenes in that movie where the characters are in direct physical danger and a large part of the tension in those scenes stems from the fact that the audience feels the characters are in danger. If at the start of the film the opening scrawl had added "And we guarantee that Han, Leia, Luke and Chewie will not be killed or incapacitated at any point" I feel it would have been a worse movie. Similarly, in a game like D&D where the characters are often having pointed bits of metal thrust at their soft bits it feels like something is lost if at no time are the characters actually at risk.

I agree that the most important thing is to decide what rules you are playing by at the start. Then again, if the whole group unanimously decides to change a rule mid game then there cannot be a problem with this - everyone the decision would affect has agreed to it. But in other circumstances, or where one person wants to change things mid way through and others don't, then the default should be you stick with the rules you agreed at the start.

[ishy]

If the odds of you dying in a fight are 2% (Using Lago's chosen numbers) and you have the supposed 4 fights a day and 13 fights a level the odds of you getting to the next level and not dying are as follows

The standard is 13 encounters a level. Succesfully sneaking past the ogre to rescue the dirt farmer means you just got the encounter XP but did not actually participate in a fight.

[Chamomile]

Finally. @Chamomile. I would start a different thread for that because Kaelik is around and his "D&D cannot and is not trying to emulate other canon" argument is, while obviously incorrect, something he will go shithouse about and he will not stop no matter what is said.

And temper tantrums like that are why I have Kaelik on ignore. Just because he hypothetically could contribute a lot to any given discussion doesn't change the fact that his signal:noise ratio is abysmal in reality.

[Kaelik]

Yes, Wrathzog, you can explain away literally any discrepancy between the genre the game is supposed to emulate and what the rules actually say by pretending that D&D isn't really trying to emulate all those things it explicitly said it was trying to emulate.

So which of the following completely idiotic premises do you believe is true?:

1) 3rd edition D&D is trying as hard as possible to meet all the same goals as OD&D.

2) 3rd edition D&D explicitly gives a list of books that it is trying to emulate that you have read all of.

Please further confirm for use that in either case, you believe both of the following premises:
a) When whatever edition of D&D you claim explicitly said it was trying to emulate stories from specific books, it did that not as a marketing move, or as a way to encourage people to think about fantasy, but just to accurately and specifically describe the stories you are allowed to tell in your D&D games.
b) You have personally read every single book on the list, and are 100% sure that in no way do some of the books have stories that are drastically different in tone and form from other books, indicating that they cover a wide range of possible stories.

And using this argument, you can justify literally any design decision ever made just by plugging your ears and saying "but it's supposed to be like this!"
...
When you have made a theory of RPG design philosophy which justifies every conceivable design decision, you have created a worthless design philosophy.

Or you could let some other factors besides what has happened in fantasy books (Hint: everything ever ever has happened in fantasy books. Fantasy books include rapey stalker shining vampires getting it on with good mormon girls, but even though that is a fantasy book, D&D is not trying to emulate it) justify design decisions.

Including really obscure weird shit like "Is this fun?" or "Does this make a good game."

[Dean]

encounters a level. Succesfully sneaking past the ogre to rescue the dirt farmer means you just got the encounter XP but did not actually participate in a fight.

I call shenanigans. Just because what you've just said is the way things should go and a good idea doesn't mean it's the way D&D thinks of things. The designers were very wary about your whole freakie hippy "Not kill every monster in the world" plan and they make it very clear that trying to get XP from not-murder is somewhere between "Probably fine, whatever" and "Basically a houserule".

Here is the relevant section from the DMG which I will type out because I don't think it's online.

"You must decide when a challenge has been overcome. Usually this is simple to do. Did the PC's defeat the enemy in battle? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points. Other times it can be trickier. Suppose the PC's sneak past the sleeping minotaur to get into the magical vault- did they overcome the minotaur encounter? If their goal was to get into the vault and the minotaur was just a guardian, then the answer is probably yes. But it's up to you to make such judgements."

[PhoneLobster]

At my real world table, we play very similarly to the way Frank and Lago are advocating.

Yeah... similarly. Of course you really should specify exactly what you mean because they are rambling rather all over the place and throwing out some crazy scenarios.

But similarly would be fine. The severe problem with their scenarios, at least as you were replying to is their utter inflexibility in game. Their outright denial that a group can or should adapt and that if they dare to, well, you saw the shit Frank was claiming.

To out line the big deal...

When we bring in new people, we make the "campaign charter" clear (see Lago's suggestion).

Yeah. That thing. Which I do. Which infact I said I do before Lago suddenly demanded it be the ONLY way to do things. Which I feel is pretty fucking crazy, considering I'm doing a decidedly optional thing there than many DON'T.

But anyway there are two problems with this.

1) It is imperfect.
If you, like me, have actually DONE this. Then I know, that you, like me, have encountered situations in play where players have gone, "Wait, was that in the charter? Oh I missed that? What's going on here isntt this usually done like this?".

People don't always remember it all. Or notice it all. People are imperfect. Even GMs are imperfect, not everything that matters will be stuck on your little house rules/charter hand out document or worse, remembered for your little impromptu house rules/charter intro speech every time.

We BOTH know that if you actually do this then there have been situations where IN PLAY you had to re-affirm, add to, clarify, remind, even sometimes for the first time partly describe to people of aspects of the charter or house rules or whatever.

Lago and Frank are railing against your ability to do that. Claiming that you can never IN GAME change a rule EVER. Even in the explicitly worst possible scenarios. As such a deeply black and white piece of totalitarian bullshit it is pretty obvious why that is such a stupid thing to say.

Because I can sit here with the very reasonable position of "You shouldn't change/clarify any rules/charters in game play... except in super extreme situations when you really really need to" and have their position be obviously extremist and impractical blow hard bullshit by comparison.

2) Not everyone does that
Everyone HAS expectations, a charter, and house rules. And I certainly promote mine as up front as possible.

But not every game has time, like one off events and such. And not every OTHER GM will even realize they should do that.

Doesn't matter though. Expectations are still there, charter is still there, house rules are still there, and most of all if something super bad turns up and theres a TPK then the problems that causes are still there and you need to deal with them somehow.

Turning a blind eye and saying "ah screw it this newb DM we have didnt do a charter a year back when he was still learning so fuck it TPK for the win!" isn't really an acceptable response.

Your way of gaming is fine. So is ours.

Actually I suspect our ways of gaming are just about exactly identical. It's just unlike Lago's odd fantasy about NEVER showing flexibility... I'm honest about how I do things.

Are you SURE you do things the way he is describing? Or perhaps when you are actually honest about it the "similar" way you do things is actually... well the way I do things...