death of a campaign

[Mary K. Kuhner]

What a coincidence: Warren started a thread on campaign deaths, and
we seem to have a live (dead) example on hand.

This was the _Shattered City Adventure Pack_ megamodule from Paizo,
supplemented by some substantial amount of GM additions. We got,
I think, a little less than halfway and gave up.

Three things seemed to contribute to this:

(1) It is very, very lethal. The GM did several things to reduce
lethality and got it down to only 2 PC deaths and no total-kills in
the five scenarios, including one which notoriously kills more than
half the PC parties who encounter it (according to Paizo's web site).
But this didn't make it fun, just survivable. The impression was
of constantly having to be extremely accurate as well as quite
lucky. The player (me) wasn't looking for a PhD exam in D&D, she just
wanted to play and have a good time. This culminated in needing over 2
hours of player preparation time before scenario 5, and still nearly
losing because an essential ability had been overlooked.

Eventually the player was too fatigued and disheartened to continue.
This is sad as scenario 5 is supposed to be the hardest, but it
didn't seem possible to overcome the impression of the first part.
Subjectively, I'd rate them as (1) borderline too hard, (2)
hard but somewhat okay, (3) way too hard, (4) okay, (5) way, way
too hard. Without anything to break them up, this was disasterous.

(2) It's written for the traditional D&Dv3 setting with levels from
1-20 or so, and for D&D advancement: the characters went from 2nd
to 8th in less than a month of play. This is very hard to change
unless the GM wants to invent lots of side adventures, as the main
setpieces are super-lethal even for their given level: you *must*
be 7th+ to do #5 or you're toast.

This led to a number of problems. The NPCs, other than those
used as foes in specific scenarios, are necessarily designed to be
appropriate to an intrigue plot among 15th-17th level characters.
If the PCs are proactive and try to investigate the "main plot"
before they are 15th level, the GM has the nasty choice between
making them fail and letting them find things they cannot possibly
deal with. SCAP as written uses #1 option, and other groups
complained that they had no idea who the main villains were even
after they had defeated them in the end. My GM used #2 option, but
it led to PC despair. Everything they could find to do, except
for the railroaded combat scenarios, was hopelessly too hard for them.
Everyone who was significant was three times their level. There
was nothing for them to do but wait for the axe--they could see
it, suspended over their heads--to fall.

Another major problem was that the player started to lose
competence with the PC abilities because they increased much too
fast. (Presumably this would be less of a problem with multiple
players. We had 6 PCs and one party NPC but only one player, and
this led to overload.)

The push to fast advancement was worsened by the extreme lethality.
You can slow down the (apparent) rate of advancement in AD&Dv3
by multiclassing and making other suboptimal decisions; but it
seemed clear that the PCs would all die if they weren't optimized.

(3) The game has a strong city setting, probably its greatest
strength, and this play group emphasized that aspect very strongly.
The PCs managed to find some level-appropriate interests and
alliances in the city, and became very invested in it. But the
module moves steadily away from that initial investment, and
we started having to fight with the characters to get them to stay
on track. I also had a strong suspicion that all of the PCs'
emotional investments were due to get wiped out, and didn't really
want to stick around to see that happen.

The very difficult scenario #5 began with someone asking the PCs to
conduct a rescue in a distant location. They would not have been
interested, except that the person to be rescued might have had
some information on a line of investigation in which they were
interested. But the scenario leading there involved a lot of
plot-irrelevant overland encounters, dungeon encounters, and then
a seven-hour setpiece fight (70+ rounds of combat!) The player
came out of that feeling as though the investment of time was
grossly too high for the amount of interest value. All I wanted to
do was talk to this NPC, and I blew something like 10-12 hours of
play, and my temper, and my morale, to accomplish that? Why
didn't the PCs stay in their city where they belonged and do things
appropriate to their level? (The characters felt much the same;
there was also some player bitterness that she'd allowed them to
be manuvered into this awful scenario.)

The GM is talking about trying to salvage the PCs and setting,
stopping PC advancement more or less cold, and following out the
PC-generated plot threads to see where they go. I don't know if
we'll do it or not. 8th level is already awfully high for me,
and unfortunately the PC wizard has gotten involved in something that
can only really play itself out via further level advancement.

The upside of the game was good setting and good characters (PCs
and NPCs). But the downsides just made it not worth trying to
continue. It's a pity that #2 is going to be a killer problem in
all of the D&D megamodules, as it's built into the core rules.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:41:28 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>(2) It's written for the traditional D&Dv3 setting with levels from
>1-20 or so, and for D&D advancement: the characters went from 2nd
>to 8th in less than a month of play. This is very hard to change
>unless the GM wants to invent lots of side adventures, as the main
>setpieces are super-lethal even for their given level: you *must*
>be 7th+ to do #5 or you're toast.
>
>This led to a number of problems. The NPCs, other than those
>used as foes in specific scenarios, are necessarily designed to be
>appropriate to an intrigue plot among 15th-17th level characters.
>If the PCs are proactive and try to investigate the "main plot"
>before they are 15th level, the GM has the nasty choice between
>making them fail and letting them find things they cannot possibly
>deal with. SCAP as written uses #1 option, and other groups
>complained that they had no idea who the main villains were even
>after they had defeated them in the end. My GM used #2 option, but
>it led to PC despair. Everything they could find to do, except
>for the railroaded combat scenarios, was hopelessly too hard for them.
>Everyone who was significant was three times their level. There
>was nothing for them to do but wait for the axe--they could see
>it, suspended over their heads--to fall.

My working theory for the root cause of this problem is the 3.x power
curve of "+2 levels = x2 power" This works OK up to about 6th-8th
level, then starts breaking down, and finally goes completely wonky
after about 10th-12 level.

For a 2nd level party, "three times their level" is 6th level - doable
as a boss encounter. For a 4th level party, it's 12th level - total
party kill if attacked directly, but survivable if you don't attract
its attention. For a 6th level party, 3x is 18th level, able to smear
the party with a casual swat without even noticing that the party is
6th level and not still 2nd level.

Maybe it was impossible due to the higher-level legacy spells, but I
really really would have liked to see a quadratic power-curve - e.g.
twice your level is 4x as powerful - rather than the exponential one
we got. That way, an 18th level character would be something for a 6th
level character to deeply respect & hold in awe, rather than something
to cower from in lovecraftian terror.

And it would give characters a sense that they've "arrived" when they
reach higher levels. As it is, a 2nd level character gains a roughly
40% boost in overall power on gaining a level, and that makes him feel
like a beginner, a novice with a lot to still learn. Which is OK
because a 2nd level character *is* a novice & beginner at the hero-ing
trade.

But a 12th level character *also* gains a roughly 40% boost in power
on gaining a level. This also gives him the feel of being a beginner,
a novice who still has a lot to learn. However, IMAO, this feeling is
utterly *in*appropriate for a 12th level character, and the system is
wrong to try to force that feeling.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>For a 2nd level party, "three times their level" is 6th level - doable
>as a boss encounter. For a 4th level party, it's 12th level - total
>party kill if attacked directly, but survivable if you don't attract
>its attention. For a 6th level party, 3x is 18th level, able to smear
>the party with a casual swat without even noticing that the party is
>6th level and not still 2nd level.

When we did the character designs for this one, we made one
of the PCs the estranged daughter of a major NPC. I still remember
the complete mental lurch when I found out, in play, that Jules'
father was minimally a 12th level mage and probably higher. The
whole idea of limited conflict between the PCs and Jules' father
suddenly looked stupid. We made a stab at it anyway, but it always
felt rather forced. He so clearly had the upper hand in every
conceivable way....it's one of those "You can't afford to win a
small victory lest the opponent escalate" situations.

(I can't resist telling an irrelevant story here. Jules habitually
passes as a man; she doesn't like her role as "noble daughter"
and prefers "rakish swashbuckler", to her family's dismay. We
knew this from the start and it worked really well in play.
We also knew that Jules' "father" was not her biological father,
because part of the PC party setup was that they were all
siblings fathered by some unknown magical critter.

Jules' father was "Lord So-And-So" in the early modules of SCAP,
and had a kind of strange name. It wasn't until partway through
the campaign that the GM read ahead and discovered, a few hundred
pages down the road, that "Lord So-And-So" was supposed to be
*female*.

Like mother, like daughter! No wonder he's not her biological
father! This really cracked me up.)

>Maybe it was impossible due to the higher-level legacy spells, but I
>really really would have liked to see a quadratic power-curve - e.g.
>twice your level is 4x as powerful - rather than the exponential one
>we got. That way, an 18th level character would be something for a 6th
>level character to deeply respect & hold in awe, rather than something
>to cower from in lovecraftian terror.

Cutting the advancement rate, and not *making* the lead NPCs
so damned high level, would also work for me. My Kyris games,
in a homebrew version of v1, didn't need to go up to 18th+
except for maybe 2 or 3 individuals in the whole setting. If you
got into conflict with the paladin Prince of Geary, well, he was
about 7th level and a very formidable foe, but it wasn't suicide.

In our hands time from 2nd to 3rd and time from 7th to 8th are
the same. And this really does make characters feel as though
they are always beginners.

>And it would give characters a sense that they've "arrived" when they
>reach higher levels. As it is, a 2nd level character gains a roughly
>40% boost in overall power on gaining a level, and that makes him feel
>like a beginner, a novice with a lot to still learn. Which is OK
>because a 2nd level character *is* a novice & beginner at the hero-ing
>trade.

>But a 12th level character *also* gains a roughly 40% boost in power
>on gaining a level. This also gives him the feel of being a beginner,
>a novice who still has a lot to learn. However, IMAO, this feeling is
>utterly *in*appropriate for a 12th level character, and the system is
>wrong to try to force that feeling.

How do you figure 40% for anything but casters? It sure doesn't
feel like that for my grunt fighter or my rogue. They get better
(which is an improvement over v1, where rogues just stopped getting
better after a point) but it's incremental, and for some levels
the increment is quite small.

We ran SCAP from 2nd to just below 9th, and the previous v3.5
game from 2nd to just below 6th. The big jumps are 2nd to 3rd and
4th to 5th for the party as a whole, driven by casters; the
non-casters had the biggest jump, if I recall correctly, at 6th
(second attack). My impression was that 2nd to 3rd doubles the
power of the party and this does not ever happen again (in the levels
I've explored).

Not disagreeing with the general principle, though. I think
fast advancement through the whole range guarantees that the
characters will never feel entirely capable, both because they
learn too much with each fast-occuring new level, and because
there is not much time to grow into their abilities.

Huh. I think I just realized why my martial-arts teacher is
putting me through the wringer to earn my next rank. Good for her.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[DougL]

On Nov 9, 12:31 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K.
Kuhner) wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> >And it would give characters a sense that they've "arrived" when they
> >reach higher levels. As it is, a 2nd level character gains a roughly
> >40% boost in overall power on gaining a level, and that makes him feel
> >like a beginner, a novice with a lot to still learn. Which is OK
> >because a 2nd level character *is* a novice & beginner at the hero-ing
> >trade.
> >But a 12th level character *also* gains a roughly 40% boost in power
> >on gaining a level. This also gives him the feel of being a beginner,
> >a novice who still has a lot to learn. However, IMAO, this feeling is
> >utterly *in*appropriate for a 12th level character, and the system is
> >wrong to try to force that feeling.

> How do you figure 40% for anything but casters? It sure doesn't
> feel like that for my grunt fighter or my rogue. They get better
> (which is an improvement over v1, where rogues just stopped getting
> better after a point) but it's incremental, and for some levels
> the increment is quite small.

Both the EL table and XP table are based on +2 CR being x2
power/challenge (with minor breaks at very low level/CR). Since the
party of four should always face roughly the same trouble from APL = EL
encounters it follows that the design intent is for the average
character to gain roughly 40% in power every level.

It's easy to miss for fighter types since most of the increase in
effectiveness is from gear and buffing spell improvements rather than
actual level effects, but IME it's still there. Fighters are far more
gear dependent than sorcerers, the massive gear upgrades help them a
lot.

Casters get flashy new spells with fancy names, fighters get just
another +1 to hit and/or to damage or to AC, but those +1s just keep
adding up.

DougL

[Del Rio]

In article <***@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>It's easy to miss for fighter types since most of the increase in
>effectiveness is from gear and buffing spell improvements rather than
>actual level effects, but IME it's still there. Fighters are far more
>gear dependent than sorcerers, the massive gear upgrades help them a
>lot.
>
>Casters get flashy new spells with fancy names, fighters get just
>another +1 to hit and/or to damage or to AC, but those +1s just keep
>adding up.

I find the thing that makes the biggest difference with
higher level fighters is all those Fighter Feats piling
up. By the time a fighter is in his "teens" he'll have
assembled a frightening array of tactical combat
abilities that go way beyond just having extra plusses
to hit.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[Simon Smith]

In message <ej06mh$qak$***@reader2.panix.com>
***@panix.com (Del Rio) wrote:

> In article <***@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> DougL <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >It's easy to miss for fighter types since most of the increase in
> >effectiveness is from gear and buffing spell improvements rather than
> >actual level effects, but IME it's still there. Fighters are far more
> >gear dependent than sorcerers, the massive gear upgrades help them a
> >lot.
> >
> >Casters get flashy new spells with fancy names, fighters get just
> >another +1 to hit and/or to damage or to AC, but those +1s just keep
> >adding up.
>
> I find the thing that makes the biggest difference with
> higher level fighters is all those Fighter Feats piling
> up. By the time a fighter is in his "teens" he'll have
> assembled a frightening array of tactical combat
> abilities that go way beyond just having extra plusses
> to hit.

As a player, all these feat combinations are good fun, and allow you to
customise your character so that he is different from every other xth level
fighter. Making characters distinctive is usually considered a highly
desirable trait in a game. Certainly I view it as such. Unfortunatyely these
feats also allow a lot of minimaxing, and the seeking out of cool (or
killer) feat combinations, which is a lot less desirable in my view.

Furthermore, as a gamemaster, that same flexibility makes designing NPCs
that are as combat-effective as the PCs a lot of hard work, and playing them
effectively can be just as hard.

It appears that the pendulum has swung too far in the favour of the players
- who have the time and the incentive to ensure their characters' 'crunchy
bits' have been highly optimised.

[Examples are mostly with a theoretically DnD slant but I'd be interested in
comments re other games too.]


Featless DnD
-------------

In a way, this is more a design question, but - there are a number of NPC
classes. These are inferior to the PC classes, which is a major reason why
PCs don't take them. Could you redress the current balance problem by making
NPC classes more powerful than PC classes, but 'featless'? The intent,
obviously, is that a tenth-level NPC warrior is a match for a well-designed
tenth-level PC warrior, without the GM having to bust his brain devising
super-cunning feat combinations. The player still gets to do 'crunchy bit'
character-customisation to his heart's content, while the GM has powerful
NPCs whose capabilities he can handle en masse, and who are roughly a match
for the players without his having to spend hours carefully calculating the
effects of feats and feat combinations. And any players who don't want to
mess with enormous numbers of feats can take a safe but bland featless NPC
character class instead. Of course if the /roleplaying/ side is rich enough,
the fact that a character is /mechanically/ bland is much less of a problem.

Personally, I get the impression that character feats are in many
ways broken. There are too many possible combinations to ensure there aren't
some grossly unbalancing ones mixed in that the designers haven't spotted.
But the players will spot them, and exploit them, and the result is
nth-level characters who can reliably defeat characters several levels
higher than themselves. But, mixing with characters that much more powerful
is dangerous, because the lower level characters are comparatively fragile,
i.e., eggshells armed with sledgehammers. This magnifies the effect of game
balance already being on a knife edge (very fast 'pace of decision',
frequently a single combat round) - so the that characters either win
cheaply (and unsatisfyingly), or die horribly.

But were feats to be banned entirely, I think the game would suffer from a
lack of 'crunchy bits', and that too would seriously diminish some
campaigns.


Combat duration
----------------

One of my own rules design guidelines is that well-structured combat
rules should generate fights that usually last at least three rounds, but no
more than about a dozen. A one-round pace of decision obviously violates
this badly.

Given that in DnD, characters start to get multiple attacks per round, and
each of those attacks does increasing damage and has an increasing chance of
a critical as the characters become more powerful, I wondered if the pace of
decision in DnD could be slowed by ruling that a character's 'attacks per
round' is their maximum entitlement, not what they do every round without
exception. The mechanic would need to be something like - one attack per
round, full chance to hit. One attack every other round, +5 to hit, possibly
+5 damage as well. (As a possible suggestion?) Two attacks per round, each
is at -5 to hit, possibly -5 damage, three attacks per round, each is at
-10 and -10, and so on. Obviously the exact numbers would need to be chosen
with more care, rather than me pulling them out of thin air, but the end
result should be that when two equally-skilled characters meet for a duel,
whether they're first level, tenth, or twenty-fifth, they're likely to only
try one or two attacks. It's only when a single high-level faces a horde of
weaker opponents that he can use his full five attacks per round and still
expect to hit with most of them. That would help slow the pace of decision a
bit. But there would obviously be a need to slow the mages down in a similar
manner or the game balance between magic users and non-magic users would be
quite badly distorted.

Has anyone tried a house rule like this?


Timing Tips for GMs
--------------------

In Star Wars, where I am slowly rewriting Edition I as 'The Bootleg
Edition', I included the following advice, 'Timing Tips for GMs':

You can roll, record, sort and resolve about 20D6 a minute if you're
organised. So allowing for actually describing a character's actions, and
rolling the dice for attacks, dodges, multiple skill uses, damage and
Strength rolls, you're doing well if you can consistently handle one
character's actions for one segment in one minute. Even a standard
stormtrooper, rolling Blaster, failing his Dodge, taking damage and rolling
Strength, needs 10-12 dice to be rolled. One combat round between half a
dozen experienced PCs and a platoon of stormtroopers could easily take half
an hour to play. If you've got lots of spear-thrower NPCs, they may go down
quickly, but their sheer numbers will eat up gaming time. If you've got a
smaller number of more powerful opponents, they'll still eat up about the
same amount of time because they'll survive longer.

For this reason, characters should never use a scorched-Earth policy against
their opponents. All that die-rolling gets old very quickly. Besides, the
combat rules in Star Wars: The Bootleg Edition - particularly the changes to
initiative, make superior numbers far more telling. Once one side has taken
significant casualties, it should retreat. 'Significant casualties' probably
means 10-20% or so. For the PCs, it means a couple of characters taking
Wounds. That means a big fight doesn't involve hours of die rolling before
the characters get down to the Last Pesky Stormtrooper, but one or two
rounds' exchange of fire against some of the attackers, then a retreat, then
a few rounds' grace during which the characters can work towards their
scenario objective, then a couple more rounds of combat. That encourages
running battles, needs far less die-rolling, and allows for survivors on the
bad guys' side. That fits the Star Wars genre much better.

But from the above guidelines, if one round of combat takes half an hour,
twelve rounds of combat could be six hours' playing time. Under these
circumstances, I would suggest that we don't necessarily want a pace of
decision measured in combat rounds, we want it to be, oh, . . . about an
hour? And after it's apparent who's going to win, mopping up and/or escaping
should be no more than another half-hour or so. So my initial 3-12 rounds
suddenly becomes 2-5 rounds, and even five combat rounds could take 2+1/2
hours to resolve.

How do these numbers gel with people's experience in other games -
particularly Shadowrun, Hero, GURPS and the like, which I've never played?

Judging from recent posters' comments, DnD can break both extremes. You can
have total party kills before the PCs (or NPCs) have a chance to realise
they're in trouble, and draining 70-round marathons. Wearing my game
designer hat, I'd conclude from both of those that something needs to be
done. But not being a regular DnD player, I just don't really know what you
could do. The ideas here are just theoretical suggestions.



--
Simon Smith

When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org

[gleichman]

Simon Smith wrote:
> As a player, all these feat combinations are good fun, and allow you to
> customise your character so that he is different from every other xth level
> fighter. Making characters distinctive is usually considered a highly
> desirable trait in a game. Certainly I view it as such. Unfortunatyely these
> feats also allow a lot of minimaxing, and the seeking out of cool (or
> killer) feat combinations, which is a lot less desirable in my view.

I'm of the opinion that offering straight up combat bonuses as a method
of making characters "distinctive" is generally a failure producing one
of two outcomes.

1. Only the most powerful lines of such improvements will typically be
taken, which wrecks the concept of being distinctive which in turn was
the whole point in the first place.

2. If all or many lines are equally powerful, the only difference then
is one perhaps of style. Thus why not build all the combat abilities
into the core combat and advancement mechanics- leaving pure style
elements to the special abilities.

Inf act, when I first saw D&D 3 edition, this was my exact thoughts:
"Oh look, they caught up with Age of Heroes except they're calling Hero
Abilities 'Feats'... hmm, combat and skill bonuses directly in those
Feats... that sucks".

The threads on D&D in this group has now convinced me that I had an
under-reaction. The whole game is broke and ill designed IMO now.


> It appears that the pendulum has swung too far in the favour of the players
> - who have the time and the incentive to ensure their characters' 'crunchy
> bits' have been highly optimised.

Many players love this sort of thing. Oddly, I'm not one of them.


> In a way, this is more a design question, but - there are a number of NPC
> classes. These are inferior to the PC classes, which is a major reason why
> PCs don't take them. Could you redress the current balance problem by making
> NPC classes more powerful than PC classes, but 'featless'?

Given how complex and unpredictable the interaction is between the
various feats and spells, this would difficult. D&D almost seems
designed to make it impossible.

However this has some merit for a new ground up design. However it
won't be accept by play styles that have problems with NPCs and PCs
being treated differently (although your option for allowing these
simple classes for players may offset that).

Further I imagine issues with a play style that focuses on how
believable the in-game world is. This solution is a very game-mechanic
method of resolving the problem, and having it appear to be a World
simulation mechanic is at first glance difficult.




> But were feats to be banned entirely, I think the game would suffer from a
> lack of 'crunchy bits', and that too would seriously diminish some
> campaigns.

The early versions of D&D lacked feats, and frankly I consider them
better and brighter campaigns than the 3.5 ones I've heard of.

What is diminished is the enjoyment of a certain type of player.


> One of my own rules design guidelines is that well-structured combat
> rules should generate fights that usually last at least three rounds, but no
> more than about a dozen. A one-round pace of decision obviously violates
> this badly.

That actually matches my own taste rather well.


> Given that in DnD, characters start to get multiple attacks per round

That was always a foolish concept.

It came out of Chainmail, where fantasy characters where a 'add-on' and
not a core part of the rules. Thus the multiple attacks easily
respresented the effect of such heroes without altering the core mass
battle rules. In wargame terms, it was chrome and not core design.

Carrying it over in D&D just increased the number of rolls per round.
That does little but waste player time and effort.


> In Star Wars, where I am slowly rewriting Edition I as 'The Bootleg
> Edition', I included the following advice, 'Timing Tips for GMs':

While the suggestion for 'morale breaks' aren't bad in concept.
Wargames used them for years.

They have never found favor in rpgs however. Players hate having them
applied to themselves, and when applied to their foes results in a
feeling of nothing but inconclusive battles.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I'm of the opinion that offering straight up combat bonuses as a method
>of making characters "distinctive" is generally a failure producing one
>of two outcomes.

In general (with some unfortunate exceptions, admittedly) the fighter
feats are not generalized bonuses to to-hit or damage; they are
specialized ones. Jules does more damage if he is able to move at
least 10' before striking, or to flank someone, or to surprise them.
Bryce does more damage if he is using his favored weapon, or if he
sacrifices to-hit for damage, or if he charges full-out at someone.

I agree that giving flat to-hit or damage bonuses with a feat is
simply a mistake. I don't feel the same about skills because of the
skill cap with level in v3.5; taking a skill-backing feat represents
wanting that to be a signature skill for your PC, which otherwise
cannot be accomplished very reliably. And the bonuses are generally
not large enough to be very troublesome.

There is a mechanical problem that too many of the situation-
specific bonuses are far too easy to use, or are supposedly
"counterbalanced" by disadvantages which do not actually impede
the character. I make a practice of never using Bryce's Power
Attack unless I am pretty sure he will still hit even with the large
minus to to-hit. I get to use it a lot anyway. It's not quite
"I do this every single attack" but it's very common. And the
downside of Weapon Specialization (that a fighter could really
do better by switching flexibly among a one-space weapon, a reach
weapon, and a missile weapon) is not enough either.

One mechanical problem is that if you are already at the point where
you can only hit on a 20 (and a 20 *always* hits) there is little
reason not to accept every minus to to-hit you can find, in the hopes of
doing more damage on the rare hits. And if you are already at the point
where you can always hit, you can afford to accept minuses, with the
same result. Only in the range in between is this tradeoff really
a tradeoff, and surprisingly often, normal game situations are not
in that "sweet spot."

At least it's better than Shadowrun in this respect. I was amazed
how non-robust Shadowrun v1 was in the face of *any* bonus or penalty.
Sweet spot of width, maybe, two.

I rather like v3.5 at 3rd-5th level. I wish I thought it was playable
outside that, but for me, no.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that Mary K. Kuhner was not wearing pants
when he or she said:
> There is a mechanical problem that too many of the situation-
> specific bonuses are far too easy to use, or are supposedly
> "counterbalanced" by disadvantages which do not actually impede
> the character. I make a practice of never using Bryce's Power
> Attack unless I am pretty sure he will still hit even with the large
> minus to to-hit. I get to use it a lot anyway. It's not quite
> "I do this every single attack" but it's very common. And the
> downside of Weapon Specialization (that a fighter could really
> do better by switching flexibly among a one-space weapon, a reach
> weapon, and a missile weapon) is not enough either.

The main drawback of any given Feat is supposed to be the opportunity
cost of picking that Feat and not some other. They're *supposed* to be
beneficial, not zero-sum; it's essentially the same as getting handed a
few more points every so often in a system like GURPS. And Weapon
Specialization is supposed to be a bit better than most Feats, since
it's the only perk, apart from sheer number of Feats, that the Fighter
gets.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@news.easynews.com>,
Jeff Heikkinen <***@jose.org> wrote:

>The main drawback of any given Feat is supposed to be the opportunity
>cost of picking that Feat and not some other. They're *supposed* to be
>beneficial, not zero-sum; it's essentially the same as getting handed a
>few more points every so often in a system like GURPS. And Weapon
>Specialization is supposed to be a bit better than most Feats, since
>it's the only perk, apart from sheer number of Feats, that the Fighter
>gets.

If Weapon Specialization is integral to being a fighter, it
should be a class ability, not a feat. (Essentially that's
how it works already, at least in the games I've seen.)

It has not been useful in diversifying fighters, in our hands.
Everyone takes it. Archery specialists take it in a different
weapon than melee specialists, but the distinction between those
two paths is already obvious long before 6th level, and the
weapon specialization does not seem to enhance it further. If
you have already taken Point Blank and Precise Shot etc. clearly
clearly you are committed to archery.

"Everyone takes it" in a Feat is a sign of something wrong, in
my opinion. If you really have to take it, the system should not
offer a choice. If it's supposed to be a choice, there should be
a wider range of good options.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:15:48 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>
>If Weapon Specialization is integral to being a fighter, it
>should be a class ability, not a feat. (Essentially that's
>how it works already, at least in the games I've seen.)
>
>It has not been useful in diversifying fighters, in our hands.
>Everyone takes it. Archery specialists take it in a different
>weapon than melee specialists, but the distinction between those
>two paths is already obvious long before 6th level, and the
>weapon specialization does not seem to enhance it further. If
>you have already taken Point Blank and Precise Shot etc. clearly
>clearly you are committed to archery.
>
>"Everyone takes it" in a Feat is a sign of something wrong, in
>my opinion. If you really have to take it, the system should not
>offer a choice. If it's supposed to be a choice, there should be
>a wider range of good options.

Not just your opinion: Over in r.g.f.dnd one of the standard tests for
a proposed new feat is the "Would Everyone Take This Feat" test (along
with the "Would Anyone Take This Feat" test). I thought it was at
least a semi-official WOTC thing, but a quick googling can't find
anything.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:21:50 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt wrote:

> Not just your opinion: Over in r.g.f.dnd one of the standard tests for
> a proposed new feat is the "Would Everyone Take This Feat" test (along
> with the "Would Anyone Take This Feat" test). I thought it was at
> least a semi-official WOTC thing, but a quick googling can't find
> anything.

It was put forward by at least one the the 3.0 designers as a good first
test of a feat. Toughness generally fails this test (too weak), and the
answer WotC seems to prefer is to make it a prerequisite for better feats
(not the best choice, IMO). Weapon Spec wasn't a total 'must have' in 3.0,
but in 3.5 it has become one because it leads into Greater Weapon Spec at
12th level (another example of strengthening a feat by making it a
prerequisite for other, better, feats). This was done because high level
fighter were perceived as being weak, and it's further extended in later
splat books. This has had the effect of making fighter stronger only if
they take the right feat chain, and as they weren't given any more feats
this makes them worse at the one thing fighters were best at - being
flexible combatants, able to be the best with several weapons and styles
(and they still aren't more than equal to a barbarian at melee combat, so
all they are best at now is being an archer).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[gleichman]

"Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:ej679j$or6$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> In general (with some unfortunate exceptions, admittedly) the fighter
> feats are not generalized bonuses to to-hit or damage; they are
> specialized ones.

If all illness were in the feet- a foot doctor wouldn't be a specialist.

Less flippantly, feats are generalized for the reasons you go on to detail.
Specialized feats are only specialized if they rarely come up. There may be
some of these in D&D, but the combat system as whole uses the feats to
balance fighters with casters (I leave successfully or not to others)- so
many of them typically fire with Regularity.

[s***@sonic.net]

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> And the
> downside of Weapon Specialization (that a fighter could really
> do better by switching flexibly among a one-space weapon, a reach
> weapon, and a missile weapon) is not enough either.

There /IS/ no downside to Weapon-Spec, unless the rules changed...?
A 6th-level fighter w/ WS:BastardSwd and another with WS:Longbow
and a third w/o any WS will all do equally-well when they pick up
a Trident.

At the worst, AFAIK, WS may incline someone to stick with their
Specialized weapon longer than is optimal for a given situation --
but that's not really a "downside".


> I rather like v3.5 at 3rd-5th level. I wish I thought it was playable
> outside that, but for me, no.

1st-2nd is playable... you just have to play taking account of the
limitations, and that these aren't yet "heroic" PC's. A few goblins
or kobolds, normal towsnfolk, more puzzles and nonfatal encounters
than "final combat" situations, etc...

I tend to figure 1st-3rd that way, though "strong 3rd" (e.g. "Elite"
& better stat arrays, two levels of lucky hitpoint rolls, etc) make for
dramatically-tougher PC's. Maybe 3rd, for sure by 4th (unless you got
*UN*lucky hitpoint rolls & a sub-average stat-array), is a different
"caliber" of PC; and of course, everything begins changing when you hit
the "fireball" levels.


--

Steve Saunders
to de-spam me, de-capitalize me

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:39:10 +0000, sNOmSPAMs wrote:

> I tend to figure 1st-3rd that way, though "strong 3rd" (e.g. "Elite"
> & better stat arrays, two levels of lucky hitpoint rolls, etc) make for
> dramatically-tougher PC's.

Which is way I refuse to have anything to do with games that don't use
point-buy for stats, with a sane number of points (absolutely no more than
32 points), and when running games I use fixed HP gains of [die size]/2+1
HP per level.

> Maybe 3rd, for sure by 4th (unless you got
> *UN*lucky hitpoint rolls & a sub-average stat-array), is a different
> "caliber" of PC; and of course, everything begins changing when you hit
> the "fireball" levels.

IME 3rd level is still in the "one good hit kills you" range, as orcs with
axes can critical for stupid amounts of damage (probably why v3.5 moved
them to using falchions). 4th level is generally out of this zone, for
frontline classes at least. I tend to see 4th level as the point at which
PCs are out of the 'starting' level range - everyone has at least a couple
of feats, and 2nd level spells or some class abilities, and the party has
a reasonable chance of taking a troll (though there's also a good chance
one of the meat shield will get torn limb from limb, but that's the case
through to 6-7th level with trolls).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that Rupert Boleyn was not wearing pants
when he or she said:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:39:10 +0000, sNOmSPAMs wrote:
> > Maybe 3rd, for sure by 4th (unless you got
> > *UN*lucky hitpoint rolls & a sub-average stat-array), is a different
> > "caliber" of PC; and of course, everything begins changing when you hit
> > the "fireball" levels.
>
> IME 3rd level is still in the "one good hit kills you" range, as orcs with
> axes can critical for stupid amounts of damage (probably why v3.5 moved
> them to using falchions).

If true, this is more surprising than you might realize; I was at GenCon
in 2000 when 3E came out, and I remember the huge cheer that went up
when Jonathan Tweet went through just how much damage it was possible
for an orc to deal on a critical hit.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:04:07 +0000, Jeff Heikkinen wrote:

>> IME 3rd level is still in the "one good hit kills you" range, as orcs with
>> axes can critical for stupid amounts of damage (probably why v3.5 moved
>> them to using falchions).
>
> If true, this is more surprising than you might realize; I was at GenCon
> in 2000 when 3E came out, and I remember the huge cheer that went up
> when Jonathan Tweet went through just how much damage it was possible
> for an orc to deal on a critical hit.

But remember, in 3.0 standard orc warriors had Str 15, so they did 1d12+3,
with 20/x3 threat/crit. In v3.5 they have Str 17, and thus hit more often,
and for more damage. Pulling them back to a 'mere' 2d4+4, 18-20/x2 makes
them more consistent and a bit less threatening to 3rd-4th level
characters without reducing the risk the pose to 1st-2nd level parties.
That said, in my last campaign they used greataxes (they also were usually
fighters with Str 19, but that's a whole other story).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <4558d7ee$0$34532$***@news.sonic.net>,
<***@sonic.net> wrote:
>Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

>> And the
>> downside of Weapon Specialization (that a fighter could really
>> do better by switching flexibly among a one-space weapon, a reach
>> weapon, and a missile weapon) is not enough either.

>There /IS/ no downside to Weapon-Spec, unless the rules changed...?
>A 6th-level fighter w/ WS:BastardSwd and another with WS:Longbow
>and a third w/o any WS will all do equally-well when they pick up
>a Trident.

>At the worst, AFAIK, WS may incline someone to stick with their
>Specialized weapon longer than is optimal for a given situation --
>but that's not really a "downside".

By "downside" I meant that there are realistic situations where
your feat doesn't help you (i.e. a fighter with WS: Greatsword
versus a flying opponent) and you might wish you'd taken something
else. I don't feel that feats should give generic bonuses; that's
what class levels are supposed to do. So there should be some
limitation--some situation in which a fighter who took a different
feat would be better off.

My experience with WS is that there is not enough downside; a
fighter who takes it just looks better than one who takes
something else, with the possible exception of Improved Initiative.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:31:44 +0000, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> My experience with WS is that there is not enough downside; a
> fighter who takes it just looks better than one who takes
> something else, with the possible exception of Improved Initiative.

Improved Initiative also gives a direct bonus, though. It's possibly
instructive that this feat, which matters only in the first round of
combat (after which everyone just acts in turn, so there's really no
'faster' or 'slower'), is so useful. Going first in the first round is
just that darned important (especially at low and high levels).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[s***@sonic.net]

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> > There /IS/ no downside to Weapon-Spec, unless the rules changed...?

> By "downside" I meant that there are realistic situations where
> your feat doesn't help you ... and you might wish you'd taken something
> else.

OK, thanks. I think I was misunderstanding you.


> I don't feel that feats should give generic bonuses; that's
> what class levels are supposed to do. So there should be some
> limitation--some situation in which a fighter who took a different
> feat would be better off.

It depends how generic the bonus, and whether there's any "penalty"
associated; e.g. Power Attack has a penalty with its bonus.

IMHO, a "generic bonus" is a viable Feat if it's intended to represent
a special concentration or schtick, a character-signature thingy.

I can agree, though, that Fighters' "Weapon Focus" (and "GWF") should
simply be a class-feature of Fighters. I think the Designer(s) idea
was simply to make Fighters be Feat-Monkeys, and get their "interest
factor" from All Those Feats (vs. various Brb/Pal/Rng "class features");
so it was (mis-?)implemented as Just Another Feat, since Fighters
aren't "supposed" to have special "Class Features".


> My experience with WS is that there is not enough downside; a
> fighter who takes it just looks better than one who takes
> something else, with the possible exception of Improved Initiative.

Yeah; there /ARE/ a few feats that fail the "will everyone will take
this?" test... Is there any concensus about how to fix Improved
Initiative? Drop the bonus to +1? Or...? I guess this question
really belongs on r.g.f.dnd, or a DnD board...


--

Steve Saunders
to de-spam me, de-capitalize me

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:55:44 +0000, sNOmSPAMs wrote:

> I can agree, though, that Fighters' "Weapon Focus" (and "GWF") should
> simply be a class-feature of Fighters. I think the Designer(s) idea
> was simply to make Fighters be Feat-Monkeys, and get their "interest
> factor" from All Those Feats (vs. various Brb/Pal/Rng "class features");
> so it was (mis-?)implemented as Just Another Feat, since Fighters
> aren't "supposed" to have special "Class Features".

The problem is that if you make it a class feature you remove the ability
to be a generalist from fighters, and you also force them to specialize at
that one particular level, rather than when convenient. Now, I've never
seen a character take Weapon Spec later than Ftr-6, but as it can be (and
usually is) taken at 4th, this shows there is some variance. Even saying
"at any time from 4th level on, a fighter may..." doesn't avoid the
problem, because any character that doesn't use the ability suffers for
that choice, and gets nothing in return.

> Yeah; there /ARE/ a few feats that fail the "will everyone will take
> this?" test... Is there any concensus about how to fix Improved
> Initiative? Drop the bonus to +1? Or...? I guess this question
> really belongs on r.g.f.dnd, or a DnD board...

Possibly drop it to +2. Or use that optional rule from 3.0 (which I think
disappeared from 3.5) that the first round of any combat is always a
partial round, even when there's no actual surprise. That means going
first isn't as useful unless you also surprised the enemy. We found this
puts a bit of a crimp on archers, but as they get to full attack more
often than most characters, and do plenty of damage this seemed fair.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:33:55 -0800, gleichman wrote:

>> One of my own rules design guidelines is that well-structured combat
>> rules should generate fights that usually last at least three rounds, but no
>> more than about a dozen. A one-round pace of decision obviously violates
>> this badly.
>
> That actually matches my own taste rather well.

Interestingly, D&D seems to have been intended to have combats that last
three to maybe ten rounds, and it even works that way to about 10th level.
Past that combats start lasting one to three rounds, and the time after
the first 1.5 rounds (calling the initial surprise round half a round) is
mostly mopping up.

> They have never found favor in rpgs however. Players hate having them
> applied to themselves, and when applied to their foes results in a
> feeling of nothing but inconclusive battles.

I've had some success in having failed morale checks by NPC result in them
surrendering unless they have a reliable means of retreat. However, this
doesn't work for groups/games that don't want to have to deal with the
issues around prisoners. Another option is to have the side that got its
arse whipped offer to negotiate with the winners. Again, this won't work
for some games (trad D&D games of slaughter of goblins and take their
stuff, for example), but it does match reality fairly well if this is the
normal outcome of a fight.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[David Meadows]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> While the suggestion for 'morale breaks' aren't bad in concept.
> Wargames used them for years.
>
> They have never found favor in rpgs however. Players hate having them
> applied to themselves, and when applied to their foes results in a
> feeling of nothing but inconclusive battles.

In my supers campaign, morale (for the NPCs) plays a big part. Usually, a
villain's surrender is a better outcome for the players than one where they
have to pound his head to jelly and risk killing him. And
run-away-to-fight-another-day is a better outcome for a villain that hanging
around to get his head pounded to jelly.

I'm currently playing Hero system, which doesn't have any explicit morale
rules (that I've been able to find). So I base "morale checks" on common
sense and my knowledge of the NPC's characters. Bank robbers will surrender
when obviously outclassed, evil masterminds will use their (prepared) escape
plan when outclassed, etc. Only psychopaths, or villains who truly think
they can win, will fight to the last punch.


--
David Meadows
"I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
-- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:59:30 +0000, David Meadows wrote:

> I'm currently playing Hero system, which doesn't have any explicit morale
> rules (that I've been able to find).

I don't think there are any. We used to make extensive use of Presence
attacks, and IIRC they have bonuses if the other side is getting pounded
or is much weaker, so that had similar effect (but it does require that
the winning side actively persues such an end).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[gleichman]

David Meadows wrote:

I note that you only apply such rules to NPCs and thus by-pass a
primary draw back of players seeing their characters give up.

And your NPC example is for the Superhero genre where inconclusive
battles is sort of the point (genre wise).

Even so, a couple of comments.

> In my supers campaign, morale (for the NPCs) plays a big part. Usually, a
> villain's surrender is a better outcome for the players than one where they
> have to pound his head to jelly and risk killing him.

A good superhero system shouldn't have death being an expected outcome
of any degree of pounding to jelly.

Exception might be made for certain types of what HERO would call
"Killing Attacks"- but those can be controlled for game tone by being
allowed or disallowed up front. That is you only let them in (at lethal
levels) if you *want* people to be killed.


> And
> run-away-to-fight-another-day is a better outcome for a villain that hanging
> around to get his head pounded to jelly.

I think that I can make that decision for my Villains better than any
mechanical morale system.

This of course is the old Personality Mechanic debate (if in a narrow
form). They certainly have their fans. But they have never been truly
successful in rpg design. Pendragon is just about their high water mark
and I note that even fans of that game seldom play it.

[David Meadows]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Meadows wrote:
>
> I note that you only apply such rules to NPCs and thus by-pass a
> primary draw back of players seeing their characters give up.

True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
But I never impose an unwanted action on a PC (mind control being an
exception, of course).


> > In my supers campaign, morale (for the NPCs) plays a big part. Usually,
a
> > villain's surrender is a better outcome for the players than one where
they
> > have to pound his head to jelly and risk killing him.
>
> A good superhero system shouldn't have death being an expected outcome
> of any degree of pounding to jelly.

Deaths are very rare in my game. I can't remember the last time a PC
accidentally killed an NPC... actually I can think of two, both of them only
semi-accidental and due to circumstances more complicated than simply
punching too hard.

But even if the rules bend over backwards to make accidental death
impossible, should the PCs make use of this fact? If the players know that a
normal man will *always* survive a 10D6 punch (which will pulverise
concrete), is it right that the character should know this also? It seems to
me that the character should ignore figures and apply common sense: "I can
pulverise concrete and this thug is unarmoured... I'd better hold back".


--
David Meadows
"I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
-- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[gleichman]

David Meadows wrote:
> True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
> But I never impose an unwanted action on a PC (mind control being an
> exception, of course).

There is a natural conflict between two genre conventions- the hero who
nevers gives up despite the odds, and the heroes who put their hands up
when the bad guys have the drop on them. The hero is seen brave in the
first and wise in the second. He can get away with this because the
writer selects the best response for his plot and frames it so that it
makes sense to his reader (or viewer).

The problem in RPGs is that the plot isn't so easily given to the
players and even if was- that would be railroading and thus undesired
by many.

I think such things are best handled by the group contract, agreement
that can allow the players to know worst case outcomes and could result
in more genre like surrenders. For example, an agreement that capture
players always get one escape attempt.


> But even if the rules bend over backwards to make accidental death
> impossible, should the PCs make use of this fact? If the players know that a
> normal man will *always* survive a 10D6 punch (which will pulverise
> concrete), is it right that the character should know this also? It seems to
> me that the character should ignore figures and apply common sense: "I can
> pulverise concrete and this thug is unarmoured... I'd better hold back".

This issue for HERO is a little overstated. A normal guy has 8 body and
a PD of 2, a 10d6 punch on average will put him at the dying level. It
clear that one should hold back.

As one increases the ability of the thug, he quickly gains defenses
equal or even exceeding that of concrete one would expect the Superhero
to up the force of his response to match. In my games it typical to
attempt to match the attack to the expect defense such that BODY damage
doesn't occur on average.

Once it reaches a certain point, a player shouldn't have to worry much
because frankly the heroes in the comics don't seem to worry much. It
may not be realistic, but it's genre.

[DougL]

On Nov 13, 2:18 pm, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> David Meadows wrote:
> > True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!

Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.

I've seen Pendragon knights, or Gloranthan Orlanthi surrender, but
those were in contexts where ransom was expected and gear (other than
tatoo's in Glorantha) replacable out of resources at home.

> As one increases the ability of the thug, he quickly gains defenses
> equal or even exceeding that of concrete one would expect the Superhero
> to up the force of his response to match. In my games it typical to
> attempt to match the attack to the expect defense such that BODY damage
> doesn't occur on average.
>
> Once it reaches a certain point, a player shouldn't have to worry much
> because frankly the heroes in the comics don't seem to worry much. It
> may not be realistic, but it's genre.

If I were developing system for superheroes I'd be inclined to simply
declare that superheroes do lethal damage only if they use a gun or
explicitely state that they are doing lethal damage (remember kids, in
popular culture guns are magical evil death-wands, not something far
less dangerous than anything that can powder cubic meters of concrete
with a single blow, hence supers who use a gun do lethal damage by
default).

Accidently killing someone is rare enough in genre that rules should
assume it doesn't happen normally. You knock him back and he falls over
the edge of the cliff and is then immediately run over by a bus at the
bottom gives enough ways to kill someone for a genre appropriate death
toll.

DougL

[gleichman]

DougL wrote:
> Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
> players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
> characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
> gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.

You make an excellent point here.

Long ago I decided to avoid games (both rpg and mmorpg) where the gear
is more important than the character. It causes all sorts of problems
not the least being what you pointed out here.

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On 13 Nov 2006 12:33:38 -0800, "DougL" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 13, 2:18 pm, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> David Meadows wrote:
>> > True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
>
>Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
>players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
>characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
>gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.

AOL

One idea I've been toying with is that of making a *wish* (or treasure
of equivalent value) be the standard ransom at high level. My thought
is to allow "I wish I had my stuff back" or even "I wish we had our
stuff back" be a valid *wish* And so the convention has developed in
the game-world that the captor gets a *wish* and the captives get
released with all their stuff back - that way, the captor at least
gets something, and the wish isn't wasted.

It's a generalization of the way certain djinn or efreet grant wishes
in exchange for their freedom. But I haven't gone with it beyond the
"toying with the idea" stage.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Will in New Haven]

DougL wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2:18 pm, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > David Meadows wrote:
> > > True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
>
> Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
> players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
> characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
> gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.

Even when I ran AD&D, player-characters in our group were not regarded
as game pieces to be "improved" by the addition of equipment. Death,
while not always final, was always worse than losing ones stupid gear.
I wouldn't run for people who acted otherwise.

>
> I've seen Pendragon knights, or Gloranthan Orlanthi surrender, but
> those were in contexts where ransom was expected and gear (other than
> tatoo's in Glorantha) replacable out of resources at home.

I find this bizzarre. I have had groups of characters fight it out
against long odds and a couple of groups were wiped out. However, none
of them were worried that being captured would lead to the loss of
their stuff.

One of the best long-term adventures I ever ran, one that actually
spanned the changeover from AD&D to our current rules, starred when a
group of moderate-level characters enterred into negotiation with a
Dragon that they had attacked more or less by mistake. The quests that
they undertook on his behalf made up the next two years or so of weekly
gaming. That WAS a surrender, although a negotiated one with benefits
for the PCs but mostly they just wanted to stay alive.

Will in New Haven

--

"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather

>
> > As one increases the ability of the thug, he quickly gains defenses
> > equal or even exceeding that of concrete one would expect the Superhero
> > to up the force of his response to match. In my games it typical to
> > attempt to match the attack to the expect defense such that BODY damage
> > doesn't occur on average.
> >
> > Once it reaches a certain point, a player shouldn't have to worry much
> > because frankly the heroes in the comics don't seem to worry much. It
> > may not be realistic, but it's genre.
>
> If I were developing system for superheroes I'd be inclined to simply
> declare that superheroes do lethal damage only if they use a gun or
> explicitely state that they are doing lethal damage (remember kids, in
> popular culture guns are magical evil death-wands, not something far
> less dangerous than anything that can powder cubic meters of concrete
> with a single blow, hence supers who use a gun do lethal damage by
> default).
>
> Accidently killing someone is rare enough in genre that rules should
> assume it doesn't happen normally. You knock him back and he falls over
> the edge of the cliff and is then immediately run over by a bus at the
> bottom gives enough ways to kill someone for a genre appropriate death
> toll.
>
> DougL

[George W Harris]

On 18 Nov 2006 10:11:06 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
<***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

:
:DougL wrote:
:> On Nov 13, 2:18 pm, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> > David Meadows wrote:
:> > > True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
:>
:> Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
:> players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
:> characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
:> gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.
:
:Even when I ran AD&D, player-characters in our group were not regarded
:as game pieces to be "improved" by the addition of equipment. Death,
:while not always final, was always worse than losing ones stupid gear.
:I wouldn't run for people who acted otherwise.

You wouldn't run for people who played their
characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
inconvenience.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

[gleichman]

"George W Harris" <***@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 18 Nov 2006 10:11:06 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
> <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> :Even when I ran AD&D, player-characters in our group were not regarded
> :as game pieces to be "improved" by the addition of equipment. Death,
> :while not always final, was always worse than losing ones stupid gear.
> :I wouldn't run for people who acted otherwise.
>
> You wouldn't run for people who played their
> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
> inconvenience.

It seems to me that there's a significant gap in role-players between those
who view the system mechanics as a reflection of the actual reality of the
game world (George's rational players) and those who feel that the mechanics
are little more than a neccessary evil that twists the game world (Will's
approach).

[Will in New Haven]

George W Harris wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 10:11:06 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
> <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :DougL wrote:
> :> On Nov 13, 2:18 pm, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> > David Meadows wrote:
> :> > > True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
> :>
> :> Certainly not in D&D3.x land. Giving up means loosing your gear, most
> :> players would (correctly) far rather their character died. Dead
> :> characters come back cheaply and easily compared to replacing lost
> :> gear. Gear dependence is one of my main problems with D&D land.
> :
> :Even when I ran AD&D, player-characters in our group were not regarded
> :as game pieces to be "improved" by the addition of equipment. Death,
> :while not always final, was always worse than losing ones stupid gear.
> :I wouldn't run for people who acted otherwise.
>
> You wouldn't run for people who played their
> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
> inconvenience.

It was not a system necessity that death be a minor inconvenience in
D&D or even AD&D. The availability of raises and resurrections was not
set by the game rules and they were very hard to come by in almost
every campaign I ever played in, certainly any that I ever played in
for long. Even if one could arrange for one, it usually cost more than
the amount of gear a character could accumulate.

Will in New Haven

--

"This ring, no other, was made by the elves, who'd pawn their own
mother to grab it themselves..." <Bored of the Rings>
> --
> Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
>
> George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'

[George W Harris]

On 18 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
<***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

:> You wouldn't run for people who played their
:> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
:> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
:> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
:> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
:> inconvenience.
:
:It was not a system necessity that death be a minor inconvenience in
:D&D or even AD&D. The availability of raises and resurrections was not
:set by the game rules and they were very hard to come by in almost
:every campaign I ever played in, certainly any that I ever played in
:for long. Even if one could arrange for one, it usually cost more than
:the amount of gear a character could accumulate.

The game rules of D&D determine who can cast
Raise Dead and Resurrection, and how much the material
components cost. So, unless you're never going to let the
characters reach ninth level, yes, the rules do set that.
:
:Will in New Haven
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

[Will in New Haven]

George W Harris wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
> <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> :> You wouldn't run for people who played their
> :> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
> :> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
> :> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
> :> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
> :> inconvenience.
> :
> :It was not a system necessity that death be a minor inconvenience in
> :D&D or even AD&D. The availability of raises and resurrections was not
> :set by the game rules and they were very hard to come by in almost
> :every campaign I ever played in, certainly any that I ever played in
> :for long. Even if one could arrange for one, it usually cost more than
> :the amount of gear a character could accumulate.
>
> The game rules of D&D determine who can cast
> Raise Dead and Resurrection, and how much the material
> components cost. So, unless you're never going to let the
> characters reach ninth level, yes, the rules do set that.

Characters reached that level in those campaigns but it took a long
time. By then they were used to thinking of life and death as major
issues. They didn't have handy guardian NPCs with those powers, so they
never got used to them.

In situations where surrender was tempting, they had to worry that
there would be no one left who COULD ressurect them. The slavers sure
wouldn't ressurect them. Neither would the Trolls, although they
couldn't surrender to the trolls, either. They still didn't surrender
very often (once to a dragon whom they had not intended to attack and
once to the border guards of the neighboring kingdom) but they were
sometimes willing to negotiate a mutual withdrawl. They didn't have to
worry much about losing their hugely important items because they
didn't have many of those. You aren't going to suggest that those
treasure troves listed in the manuals were part of the RULES, are you?

The rules didn't say anywhere that the components had to be available,
by the way. I remember reading in the first edition of the AD&D DM
guide that we GM's had to abide strictly by their rules or our players
would desert us. Those comments were One True Way cubed. The comment
didn't impress me. The rules as they were written gave me enough leeway
to run the game. Gygax' editorial exegisis never registered much.

Oh, you say, I wasn't REALLY running AD&D. shrug. It never mattered to
my player group. Maybe I was lucky. When I changed systems, they
followed me there too.

Will in New Haven

--

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail
better."
Samuel Beckett, "Worstward Ho", 1983




> :
> :Will in New Haven
> --
> Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
>
> George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:35:07 -0800, Will in New Haven wrote:

> In situations where surrender was tempting, they had to worry that
> there would be no one left who COULD ressurect them. The slavers sure
> wouldn't ressurect them. Neither would the Trolls, although they
> couldn't surrender to the trolls, either. They still didn't surrender
> very often (once to a dragon whom they had not intended to attack and
> once to the border guards of the neighboring kingdom) but they were
> sometimes willing to negotiate a mutual withdrawl. They didn't have to
> worry much about losing their hugely important items because they
> didn't have many of those. You aren't going to suggest that those
> treasure troves listed in the manuals were part of the RULES, are you?

In many ways they were, even in AD&D1. And heck, those tables were
generally _less_ generous than the old modules.

> The rules didn't say anywhere that the components had to be available,
> by the way. I remember reading in the first edition of the AD&D DM guide
> that we GM's had to abide strictly by their rules or our players would
> desert us. Those comments were One True Way cubed. The comment didn't
> impress me. The rules as they were written gave me enough leeway to run
> the game. Gygax' editorial exegisis never registered much.

I don't recall terribly hard to obtain components being required for Raise
Dead. These days it's 5000gp of diamonds, and in AD&D2 Raise Dead was
'V,S', so no material components were required at all. Instead you lost a
level and your chance of surviving the next attempt dropped.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[David Meadows]

"George W Harris" <***@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
> <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> :> You wouldn't run for people who played their
> :> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
> :> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
> :> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
> :> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
> :> inconvenience.
> :
> :It was not a system necessity that death be a minor inconvenience in
> :D&D or even AD&D. The availability of raises and resurrections was not
> :set by the game rules and they were very hard to come by in almost
> :every campaign I ever played in, certainly any that I ever played in
> :for long. Even if one could arrange for one, it usually cost more than
> :the amount of gear a character could accumulate.
>
> The game rules of D&D determine who can cast
> Raise Dead and Resurrection, and how much the material
> components cost. So, unless you're never going to let the
> characters reach ninth level, yes, the rules do set that.

I played AD&D for at least two years and DMed for one and I can't remember a
PC ever reaching 9th level. The game was perfectly playable and enjoyable
for extended periods at lower levels.


--
David Meadows
"I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
-- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[Will in New Haven]

David Meadows wrote:
> "George W Harris" <***@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Nov 2006 15:37:40 -0800, "Will in New Haven"
> > <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >
> > :> You wouldn't run for people who played their
> > :> characters rationally? In D&D, death is an easily
> > :> overcome temporary setback, and insisting people
> > :> ignore that is crazy. If you don't want people to treat
> > :> death casually, don't run a system in which it's a minor
> > :> inconvenience.
> > :
> > :It was not a system necessity that death be a minor inconvenience in
> > :D&D or even AD&D. The availability of raises and resurrections was not
> > :set by the game rules and they were very hard to come by in almost
> > :every campaign I ever played in, certainly any that I ever played in
> > :for long. Even if one could arrange for one, it usually cost more than
> > :the amount of gear a character could accumulate.
> >
> > The game rules of D&D determine who can cast
> > Raise Dead and Resurrection, and how much the material
> > components cost. So, unless you're never going to let the
> > characters reach ninth level, yes, the rules do set that.
>
> I played AD&D for at least two years and DMed for one and I can't remember a
> PC ever reaching 9th level. The game was perfectly playable and enjoyable
> for extended periods at lower levels.

The characters in my AD&D campaigns generally did reach the ninth
through eleventh level area but they had achieved a great deal and
accumulated money to live comfortably by then. They had, for the most
part, never intended to be professional adventurers and there were
opportunities to spend the rest of their lives peacefully, which they
accepted.

I suppose they associated adventure with necessity, danger and
discomfort and did not choose to seek it for its own sake. Most of them
were in their late Thirties by then and had other interests. The
characters, not the players. At any rate, I never ran an extended AD&D
adventure for a group of characters above this level, so I never had to
deal with the attitude that "we can just get our casualties
resurrected.

We did have some sessions where the characters, having achieved their
goals, had to answer for themselves the question that is central to
Heinlein's <Glory Road> but, with one exception, they settled down to
lives as adults and younger characters went on later adventures.

Easily-available ressurection as a right and part of the rules seems
bizarre to me. A GM should have some choice about the level of
lethality in her or his game and players can choose to play in the game
or not. Those D&D and later AD&D campaigns weren't super-lethal but the
characters didn't generally take combat lightly.

Will in New Haven

--



>
> --
> David Meadows
> "I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
> -- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
> http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On 13 Nov 2006 12:18:04 -0800, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>David Meadows wrote:
>> True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
>> But I never impose an unwanted action on a PC (mind control being an
>> exception, of course).
>
>There is a natural conflict between two genre conventions- the hero who
>nevers gives up despite the odds, and the heroes who put their hands up
>when the bad guys have the drop on them. The hero is seen brave in the
>first and wise in the second. He can get away with this because the
>writer selects the best response for his plot and frames it so that it
>makes sense to his reader (or viewer).
>
>The problem in RPGs is that the plot isn't so easily given to the
>players and even if was- that would be railroading and thus undesired
>by many.
>
>I think such things are best handled by the group contract, agreement
>that can allow the players to know worst case outcomes and could result
>in more genre like surrenders. For example, an agreement that capture
>players always get one escape attempt.

Maybe, but it seems to me that the problem is with the bad guys
generating a big enough "drop" on the PCs to justify a surrender.
What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Stephen McIlvenna]

"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
>
> What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
> surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
> PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
> roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.
>
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> ***@aol.com

Just wanted to chip in and say that I really like this thought.

An element of the fight-until-we-die player attitude in some of my games has
just been hopeless optimism. 'Yes, we're still outnumbered. Yes, we've seen
the enemy mage cast some impressively dangerous spells. Yes, our best
fighter is low on hit points. But if I just avoid this next attack then I'm
sure we can turn it around'.

Being in the position to see that you didn't avoid the attack, that you are
about to take final damage and _then_ being given the choice to surrender or
die sounds like it would meet with greater willingness to lay down weapons
and play through the consequences.


Gambling on favourable dice rolls led to similar problems in a swashbuckling
d20 campaign. The set up was supposed to be one where the villain has a
sword to the sweetheart's throat and the heroes are forced to back-off.
Brushing over some of the details, the experienced d20 player pointed out
that, by the rules, the sweetheart was probably grappled and not actually
helpless and thus could almost certainly survive a damage roll. In essence,
her life was deemed not to be in real danger and so they charged. (The house
rule for similar sessions was greater flexibility around the notion of
helplessness and coup-de-grace, at least regarding dramatically significant
NPCs).

Stephen
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.mci/

[psychohist]

Stephen McIlvenna posts, in part:

An element of the fight-until-we-die player attitude in some of my
games
has just been hopeless optimism. 'Yes, we're still outnumbered. Yes,
we've seen the enemy mage cast some impressively dangerous spells.
Yes, our best fighter is low on hit points. But if I just avoid this
next
attack then I'm sure we can turn it around'.

I've definitely seen that attitude. This applies not only to capture,
but also to other options like flight. Very rarely is a player
character willing to flee a battle even when fleeing is clearly the
right choice.

Once that I can recall, I ran an encounter that resulted in most of the
party being captured. The bandits who had captured them weren't cold
blooded enough to simply execute them once they were helpless, but they
were greedy enough to want to extract some additional money from them
by ransoming them back to friends or relatives. One would think that
the characters would have appreciated that this permitted them to
survive, but no: the characters and their players seemed to take
personal offense at the situation, and thereafter pursued those
particular bandits with a vindictiveness I've never seen before or
since.

At least one player mentioned that he thought the player characters
should be able to be heroes, by which he meant they should never have
to flee and never give up. Of course, he also wanted them to be able
to fight when the odds were against them, and he didn't want the
gamesmaster to fudge in the players' favor. I'm not sure how he
expected all of that to be possible at one time; perhaps he just never
thought it throgh.

Warren J. Dew

[Del Rio]

In article <***@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
psychohist <***@aol.com> wrote:
>Once that I can recall, I ran an encounter that resulted in most of the
>party being captured. The bandits who had captured them weren't cold
>blooded enough to simply execute them once they were helpless, but they
>were greedy enough to want to extract some additional money from them
>by ransoming them back to friends or relatives. One would think that
>the characters would have appreciated that this permitted them to
>survive, but no: the characters and their players seemed to take
>personal offense at the situation, and thereafter pursued those
>particular bandits with a vindictiveness I've never seen before or
>since.

I've seen that, too. In fact, the bandits in question had the
foresight to insist upon an oath not to take revenge on them,
and yet the group spent the next 20 years of the campaign
stewing over that incident and occasionally trying to find a
gap in that tightly-worded agreement.

Also, as far as attachment to equipment goes... players start
to think of certain equipment as fundamental to their character
concept. The more more unique, famous, or historically
significant the piece of equipment is, the more integral to the
player's image of their character it becomes.

I remember one incident of a not-even-especially-important ring
that was taken from a character when he was captured by some
denizens of a vast underground complex (of "Moria" type
proportions). He immediately tried to stir up the rest of the
party to raid the complex to get his ring back, not even
knowing which clan possessed it, or what part of the complex
they inhabited. It would have the equivalent of The Fellowship
turning back into the Mines of Moria, and attacking the orc
hordes to recover a lost magic dagger. And the player almost
took his character in solo when the rest of the group refused
to participate.

That character spent years stewing about that ring, and would
occasionally try to use divining magic to determine the current
possessor of it so he could get it back. Some humor: another
character shortly thereafter gained a pretty much identical ring
after defeating a force from that same complex, and the first
character remained forever afterward convinced that it was *his
ring* that had been "recovered", and he pestered the second
character for years to "return" it to him.

An even worse case of this kind of possessiveness: I proposed
taking my very old, very overpowered campaign and bringing it
back down to earth by limiting the major magic in the campaign
(it was going to be an almost total world refresh, with
everything re-settling at a lower level). The players were in
principle in favor of this, but when I mentioned that it meant
de-powering most of the major (unique, artifact-level) magic
items in the campaign, including theirs, I got the *coldest*
looks I've ever had from that group of people. There was NO
WAY they would accept losing unique magic items that had come,
in their minds, to be integrally identified with their
characters.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[Thomas Lindgren]

***@panix.com (Del Rio) writes:

> Also, as far as attachment to equipment goes... players start
> to think of certain equipment as fundamental to their character
> concept. The more more unique, famous, or historically
> significant the piece of equipment is, the more integral to the
> player's image of their character it becomes.

I wonder if this has to do with lack of character uniqueness
otherwise. If there were some semi-formalized mechanics to record
achievements, I speculate it might not be such a big deal. But I think
it would have to be something to be written down on the character
sheet, and likely something with a formalized real game world
impact. (Bonuses to certain social skills, automatic rebates on magic
items due to gratitude, etc?) So instead of carrying around various
artifacts that grant 'special powers', the character itself
accumulates special powers.

Traditionally, adventurers got promoted higher in social ranking,
which is a pretty nice mechanic (as a noble, you get social standing,
land, auto income, ...). For the high-plains drifters that seem to
make up most parties, this might not work, but maybe one could come up
with something similar. Guild rankings? Partnership in the continental
mage consultancy?

Okay, just speculation as I said, and probably not everyone's cup of
tea, but it might be worth a try.

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[gleichman]

Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> ***@panix.com (Del Rio) writes:
>
> > Also, as far as attachment to equipment goes... players start
> > to think of certain equipment as fundamental to their character
> > concept. The more more unique, famous, or historically
> > significant the piece of equipment is, the more integral to the
> > player's image of their character it becomes.
>
> I wonder if this has to do with lack of character uniqueness
> otherwise.

I disagree as I've seen the same behavior in systems/campaigns that
provide any number of methods for character uniqueness.

I suggest the following mind experiment: Imagine King Author, now have
him lose Excalibur because of a brigand encounter at the midpoint of
his career. If that rubs you wrong, then you have an idea of the
motivation behind such players.

Individual gamers are of course different, and each will fix upon
different elements that they will consider key to their image of their
characters. Having items be part or even the whole of that isn't
uncommon. And removing those items from such players is the same as
killing that character- or even worse.

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Individual gamers are of course different, and each will fix upon
>different elements that they will consider key to their image of their
>characters. Having items be part or even the whole of that isn't
>uncommon. And removing those items from such players is the same as
>killing that character- or even worse.

I've had individual characters for whom it would have been fatal
and others for whom it wouldn't have mattered at all. The first
campaign I played in while I was in grad school had characters
*very* strongly defined by their artifact items, but even there, when
we ended up playing two characters apiece I had one who was and one who
wasn't.

The one who wouldn't have tolerated losing his items was the mage,
Kalvin, who rather early in his career became the owner of the
Crooked Staff and the Orb That Is Not Round. I don't think he ever
did anything after that which wasn't more or less dependent on having
those two things--partly because they had a drastic effect on his
spellcasting, perceptions, and arguably sanity, and partly because
they fit his personality so extremely well. And the nature of the
campaign was that having them taken away and eventually replaced with
something else of comparable power really would have resulted in
a different character. (A sane one, the other PCs would have argued....)

The one who would have tolerated it was a priest, and she was
strongly defined by being, in her own words, a lawful evil priest of
a chaotic evil cult, so that she was contantly walking a thin
line with regard to her own god. Only late in the campaign did she
acquire anything that it would have broken her to lose, and that
wasn't an item, it was a tower and a husband. (The GM eventually
took both of them away, and it did indeed break the character.)

Items can be significant because they are ties to the character's
past; because they are central to a defining schtick; because the
ability they grant becomes key to the character's role; because they
tie the character into a plotline or setting element from which he
would otherwise be disconnected (Excaliber fits here); or just because
having the tangible evidence of your accomplishments taken away is
Not Fun for a lot of players.

It may be easier to avoid this if the game avoids taking away other
tangible accomplishments. I've been in a lot of campaigns where if
you saved the village, you never saw it again. If, instead, the village
throws a huge party every May 5th and fetes the PCs like kings, and
gives them free beer every time they come by, the validation may seem
a lot more real.

I also think that people who model their roleplaying games on stories
may miss that some things are more fun to read about than they are
to play. There are a lot of standard tropes in stories that I really
hate to encounter as games, because they are just no damn fun for
me. Arriving just too late to save the innocents from being slaughtered,
so that you're (supposedly) motivated to avenge them, is one for me.
Getting stripped and having to start from scratch is one for a lot of
players. It's no use saying "But it works in stories"--in a story
you can whizz through the frustrating parts in a way you can't while
gaming.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Thomas Lindgren]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> > ***@panix.com (Del Rio) writes:
> >
> > > Also, as far as attachment to equipment goes... players start
> > > to think of certain equipment as fundamental to their character
> > > concept. The more more unique, famous, or historically
> > > significant the piece of equipment is, the more integral to the
> > > player's image of their character it becomes.
> >
> > I wonder if this has to do with lack of character uniqueness
> > otherwise.
>
> I disagree as I've seen the same behavior in systems/campaigns that
> provide any number of methods for character uniqueness.

You may well be right in your disagreement.

> I suggest the following mind experiment: Imagine King Author, now have
> him lose Excalibur because of a brigand encounter at the midpoint of
> his career. If that rubs you wrong, then you have an idea of the
> motivation behind such players.

Well, King Arthur is an interesting case.

Mallory's Arthur drew one sword out of that stone, then got another
one (or the same) from the Lady of the Lake. Maybe there were brigands
in between. In another account, The Vulgate, Arthur after a time gives
Excalibur away to Gawaine, who then uses it from then on. (Arthur
himself wields another sword, named Sequence.) The reason, it is
speculated, might have been that he nearly got killed in the
counterfeit Excalibur incident. (GMs take note.) Also, the scabbard of
Excalibur protected the wearer from losing blood, and Merlin thought
it worth ten of the sword; but it was stolen and thrown in a lake by
Morgan. So there are some precedents for characters giving up or
losing their cool gear.

(Source: THE ARTHURIAN COMPANION, Phyllis Ann Karr.)

Karr also notes something that I believe a GM may use: the weapon in
question was associated with a prophecy, not to be drawn "until
Arthur's moment of greatest need". Prophecies can be a useful game
within the game. And instead of losing your artifacts to a random
encounter (unsatisfying), maybe those brigands either really were
appropriately mythical disguised villains or their trusted henchmen.
The reasoning here being, if the item actually is significant, and
you're a storyteller type GM, then it probably shouldn't be taken away
by something insignificant. (But what if the player character insists
on being Gollum rather than Bilbo?)

Anyway, I do see your point: whatever happened to the actual King
Arthurs, if a player identifies his King Arthur that strongly with
wielding Excalibur, then I guess you will have to live with eternal
tantrums if you take it away (without retiring the character).
Caveat GM.

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[gleichman]

Thomas Lindgren wrote:

I'll pass on a debate over the "actual King Arthurs" and jump to this:

> Anyway, I do see your point: whatever happened to the actual King
> Arthurs, if a player identifies his King Arthur that strongly with
> wielding Excalibur, then I guess you will have to live with eternal
> tantrums if you take it away (without retiring the character).

Exactly.

And to continue the thought...

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> I also think that people who model their roleplaying games on stories
> may miss that some things are more fun to read about than they are
> to play. There are a lot of standard tropes in stories that I really
> hate to encounter as games, because they are just no damn fun for
> me.

One of the joys of this group has always been reading Mary's posts.

There's a great deal of conflict between players and GMs that can be
traced directly to this source. What it comes down to is that the GM
has moved from helping the players tell their story to telling his own.


For example, I can't imagine taking away a PC's tower and husband
unless I had the permission of the player in the first place. To use
old TV references, she may have been interested in a fantasy version of
'Heart to Heart' and would be rightfully be terribly upset to suddenly
find herself playing "The Fugitive" instead just because the GM thought
it would make a better story (game).

BTW, the above is not to say that was the motivation for what happened
in Mary's game, but it makes a great example in general.

Going out on a limb here, IMO for simulation style play all this
results in a very hard tightrope to walk. Events can happen that if not
allowed to occur will break the reality of the game world- and likely
break the player's interest in the game. If they occur however, they
could break player's interest in the character- and thus their interest
in the game. More than any other time of player, I think the
Simulationists puts themselves into Catch-22 situations.

[Will in New Haven]

gleichman wrote:
> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>
> I'll pass on a debate over the "actual King Arthurs" and jump to this:
>
> > Anyway, I do see your point: whatever happened to the actual King
> > Arthurs, if a player identifies his King Arthur that strongly with
> > wielding Excalibur, then I guess you will have to live with eternal
> > tantrums if you take it away (without retiring the character).
>
> Exactly.
>
> And to continue the thought...
>
> Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> > I also think that people who model their roleplaying games on stories
> > may miss that some things are more fun to read about than they are
> > to play. There are a lot of standard tropes in stories that I really
> > hate to encounter as games, because they are just no damn fun for
> > me.
>
> One of the joys of this group has always been reading Mary's posts.
>
> There's a great deal of conflict between players and GMs that can be
> traced directly to this source. What it comes down to is that the GM
> has moved from helping the players tell their story to telling his own.
>
>
> For example, I can't imagine taking away a PC's tower and husband
> unless I had the permission of the player in the first place. To use
> old TV references, she may have been interested in a fantasy version of
> 'Heart to Heart' and would be rightfully be terribly upset to suddenly
> find herself playing "The Fugitive" instead just because the GM thought
> it would make a better story (game).
>
> BTW, the above is not to say that was the motivation for what happened
> in Mary's game, but it makes a great example in general.
>
> Going out on a limb here, IMO for simulation style play all this
> results in a very hard tightrope to walk. Events can happen that if not
> allowed to occur will break the reality of the game world- and likely
> break the player's interest in the game. If they occur however, they
> could break player's interest in the character- and thus their interest
> in the game. More than any other time of player, I think the
> Simulationists puts themselves into Catch-22 situations.

I agree that doing something like that would be pointless and apt to
destroy player interest in a game. An exception might be made if the
PLAYER wanted to run that "The Fugitive" campaign you mention. However,
that would require the active interest of the player. In my game,
because I don't find that concept so intriguing, it would have to be
the player's idea.

On the other hand, I don't really like it if the characters are played
as if this could never happen to them. I don't mind that my players
know it but I would hate it if they played their characters on this
assumption. In one of my earlier campaigns a character's wife was
kidnapped. The character was really hung up on her and the player knew
that I would not have her killed in this situation. In fact, I am sure
that he knew that I would allow a rescue to work as long as it were
reasonably planned. However, he was able to insulate his character from
that knowledge and his arranged to pay her ransom.

Of course, the villain tried a double-cross and it all ended up in a
glorious pitched battle but that is another story.

This is the problem I have with rules that eliminate the possibility of
failure. I can't fudge an open die roll so that the character succeeds
but I can make the situation work out so he gets another chance. I like
that better than the situation where the characters KNOW that there are
saving rolls and that they, as PCs, have extra chances. For that
reason, I don't like optional re-rolls. Who is the player playing when
he takes that extra roll. God?

Elsethread, someone asked me if the characters should have to ignore
the way the world works. I didn't reply but my answer is yes, in many
circumstances they should.

Will in New Haven

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:55:53 -0800, gleichman wrote:

> For example, I can't imagine taking away a PC's tower and husband
> unless I had the permission of the player in the first place. To use
> old TV references, she may have been interested in a fantasy version of
> 'Heart to Heart' and would be rightfully be terribly upset to suddenly
> find herself playing "The Fugitive" instead just because the GM thought
> it would make a better story (game).

I tend to take that permission as being granted when the players agree to
play in one of my games. However, even though I've explained this up front
to new players I've run into the problem of players taking it badly. As I
tend to take having stuff (be it equipment, rank, whatever) taken away
badly as a player, over the years I've become more careful about this -
now I get explicit permission from players, rather than just relying on
the opening campaign contract.

> Going out on a limb here, IMO for simulation style play all this
> results in a very hard tightrope to walk. Events can happen that if not
> allowed to occur will break the reality of the game world- and likely
> break the player's interest in the game. If they occur however, they
> could break player's interest in the character- and thus their interest
> in the game. More than any other time of player, I think the
> Simulationists puts themselves into Catch-22 situations.

Most, but not all, of the roleplayers I've met who had such problems were
gamists. However, that's because they were bad losers, and having their
character lose stuff meant that they'd 'lost', and so they took it badly.

Actually, it's probably unreasonable to call most of those guys 'gamists'
- they should probably be considered 'tokenists'.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <ejt7bf$a1m$***@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>Most, but not all, of the roleplayers I've met who had such problems were
>gamists. However, that's because they were bad losers, and having their
>character lose stuff meant that they'd 'lost', and so they took it badly.

RPGs and video games differ from most ordinary board games in that
there doesn't have to be a loser. I think it's reasonable that they
attract mindsets which aren't very interested in losing; and a lot
of RPG groups successfully cater to this.

If I enter into playing, say, chess with the expectation I will never
lose, I'm being an idiot and I'm bound to be disappointed. Not even
the World Champion gets that. But if I enter into _Heroes of Might
and Magic IV_ (which is what I'm currently playing) with the
expectation that I won't lose, I'm not hurting anyone, and it's not
unreasonable that I may get what I want. (Especially if I turn the
difficulty down--and I may yet do that, because the losses are really
more annoying than challenging.)

Whether the player still wants it when she gets it is another question,
but for at least some players in some situations the answer is "yes."
I don't think I would still be playing _Heroes_ if I lost even 1/3
of the time. In a board game, I know I have to give my opponent
a fair shot, but here there's no such obligation; the only thing
against winning all the time is that it may detract from the challenge,
and for me, right now, I'd rather win than have a really strong
challenge.

If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
it's better just regarded as a preference.

A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs
wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> If this is a personality flaw it's an awfully common one; I think
> it's better just regarded as a preference.
>
> A common problem with such games is that they are entertaining for
> the players but not for the GM. I get tired of having my NPCs
> wiped out time and again; I spoiled a campaign recently by engineering
> a TPK in the attempt to make things "a bit more challenging." Clearly
> I overshot, but by game contract I shouldn't even have been trying.

I think it's very common indeed.

The group contract in such cases doesn't seem to be a case of "we will
meet foes that have a even or even significant chance to defeat us",
but rather "we will meet foes that will defeat us if we don't play
well".

Given the nature of rpgs and the desire for extended campaigns, I'd
have to say that this is the default Gamist agreement.

As for it not being fun for the GM...

I can only speak for myself, but I find that my enjoyment from running
my game is found in significant degree from cheering for the players. I
typically want the bad guys to go down as much as they.

I do enjoy setting up battles so that they have to be smart to win
although I will admit that such a thing is difficult and the suggestion
I have for pulling it off aren't likely to work for GMs who favor a
simulationist approach to their NPCs. But then again, I don't think
that contract works well for simulationist GMs.

[gleichman]

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> I tend to take that permission as being granted when the players agree to
> play in one of my games. However, even though I've explained this up front
> to new players I've run into the problem of players taking it badly. As I
> tend to take having stuff (be it equipment, rank, whatever) taken away
> badly as a player, over the years I've become more careful about this -
> now I get explicit permission from players, rather than just relying on
> the opening campaign contract.

I think the change is wise.

Game contracts tend to be high level, general, and forseen, but a
player's image and attachment to a character can be very specific and
often unexpected. The result is a player who finds himself suddenly and
by suprise saying "Yes I said you could do anything, but stay off my
blue suede shoes"


> Actually, it's probably unreasonable to call most of those guys 'gamists'
> - they should probably be considered 'tokenists'.

One of the bad effects of the threefold was the tendency to invoke one
of the labels for what is in effect selfish or dysfunction play. One
doesn't call a cheater a "sportsman", he's specifically called
a "bad sport" or something else.

I'd like to suggest that we attempt the same behavior.

[Del Rio]

In article <***@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> Actually, it's probably unreasonable to call most of those guys 'gamists'
>> - they should probably be considered 'tokenists'.
>
>One of the bad effects of the threefold was the tendency to invoke one
>of the labels for what is in effect selfish or dysfunction play. One

That would be jerks misusing the theory to run other people
down, then - I bet it correlated strongly with people of the
"my paradigm is superior to your paradigm" attitude, as well.
People's prefered paradigm and their ability to exhibit mature
behavior are orthogonal concepts, except to people with some
kind of game-philosophical axe to grind. The fact that anyone
can even *have* an axe to grind over such a thing is pathetic,
and it makes me sad that I've seen such things.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[psychohist]

Brian Gleichman posts, in part:

Individual gamers are of course different, and each will fix
upon different elements that they will consider key to their image
of their characters. Having items be part or even the whole
of that isn't uncommon. And removing those items from
such players is the same as killing that character- or
even worse.

This is my experience as well. Items can become part of some
characters' personae - for a literary example, Elric wouldn't have been
Elric without Stormbringer. For other characters, items may be
relatively unimportant.

Of course, social status can also be lost. For that matter, there was
a major player character in my campaign who lost an arm at one point;
he had to transition from being a character that was as much a fighter
as a merchant to one who was primarily a merchant and trainer.

That perhaps illustrates something else: with the right players, such
transitions can be seen as roleplaying opportunities rather than
disasters. That they can happen, and how, ought to be a clearly
understood part of the game contract, of course.

Going out on a limb here, IMO for simulation style play all
this results in a very hard tightrope to walk. Events can happen
that if not allowed to occur will break the reality of the game
world- and likely break the player's interest in the game. If
they occur however, they could break player's interest in the
character- and thus their interest in the game. More than any
other time of player, I think the Simulationists puts
themselves into Catch-22 situations.

My experience tends to back this up. It helps to have players who
value game world consistency highly, and it helps to have players who
are willing to play characters that change roles in the world. Most of
all, though, it helps to have players who play multiple characters, so
their interest in the game isn't tied up entirely with one single
character.

Warren J. Dew

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
psychohist <***@aol.com> wrote:

>My experience tends to back this up. It helps to have players who
>value game world consistency highly, and it helps to have players who
>are willing to play characters that change roles in the world. Most of
>all, though, it helps to have players who play multiple characters, so
>their interest in the game isn't tied up entirely with one single
>character.

My experience--I don't know how well it generalizes--is that for this
benefit to apply, the multiple characters have to be engaged in
the gameworld in different ways. Playing two PCs in one adventuring
party doesn't, in my hands, insulate against the effect of having
bad things happen to one of them. Having a whole different line of
development to take up the player's attention does better for this.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[gleichman]

Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> In article <***@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> psychohist <***@aol.com> wrote:
> >Most of
> >all, though, it helps to have players who play multiple characters, so
> >their interest in the game isn't tied up entirely with one single
> >character.
>
> My experience--I don't know how well it generalizes--is that for this
> benefit to apply, the multiple characters have to be engaged in
> the gameworld in different ways.

I'm doubtful. IME when a player has a character break on them there is
a serious morale hit that is a cloud hanging over them thereafter. As
my recent Deadlands experience shows (different cause, but same result-
player unhappy with his character) this can grow and infect the entire
group including the GM.

At that point additional or replacement characters wouldn't help, it
needed a switch in games.

And that's without any feeling of being betrayed by the GM, which may
exist under the worse conditions.

I'm thinking that multiple characters is of primary benefit when player
attachment in the first place is rather weak. Be it from the group
contract or from their own style. Warren my well benefit from the
former given what I know of his campaign.

[psychohist]

Brian Gleichman posts, in part:

I'm thinking that multiple characters is of primary benefit when
player attachment in the first place is rather weak. Be it from
the group contract or from their own style. Warren my well
benefit from the former given what I know of his campaign.

In cases where character attachment is weak, there doesn't tend to be
much of a problem, in my experience. It's when character attachment is
strong that there's an issue.

Having multiple characters to whom a player is strongly attached helps
because if one of the characters dies or is altered in a way that makes
it unplayable, the player can switch focus to one of the other
characters, and still enjoy the game. Yes, there's a period of bad
morale, but in my experience, players can overcome it if there's
something else to focus on. If it was their only character, they end
up dwelling on the loss.

I agree it helps if the characters are in different groups, or at least
are involved in some different things. In a permanent death game with
a nonzero fatality rate, though, groups do tend to adjust to the
occasional loss of members.

[gleichman]

psychohist wrote:
>Yes, there's a period of bad
> morale, but in my experience, players can overcome it if there's
> something else to focus on. If it was their only character, they end
> up dwelling on the loss.

I'll accept your experience on this for at least your style of game. My
own however is different, but then given the differences I wouldn't be
suprised.

> I agree it helps if the characters are in different groups, or at least
> are involved in some different things. In a permanent death game with
> a nonzero fatality rate, though, groups do tend to adjust to the
> occasional loss of members.

I find death is often the easiest loss to overcome. Far worse is the
lost of the player's vision of the character.

[Thomas Lindgren]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> Going out on a limb here, IMO for simulation style play all this
> results in a very hard tightrope to walk. Events can happen that if not
> allowed to occur will break the reality of the game world- and likely
> break the player's interest in the game. If they occur however, they
> could break player's interest in the character- and thus their interest
> in the game. More than any other time of player, I think the
> Simulationists puts themselves into Catch-22 situations.

My initial reaction was that it would break my simulationist-GM
interest in the game before anything else, but perhaps there are ways
to get around that.

I can see two "above board" ways of combining simulation with a story
telling veto. A GM-driven way is to simply stop simulation when there
are activities that do not permit certain outcomes (e.g., destruction
of the characters cool gear), and/or controlling the environment ("no
earth elemental will ever come close to the tower, because ..."). A
player-driven way is to permit the players to stop and reset bad
outcomes. After all, why argue about it if it will destroy the game?
There have been systems (AFTERMATH) with mechanics permitting this,
though limited to special in-game abilities. The third way (probably
common enough; I know I've sat at both ends of it) is to pretend
simulation and fudge the dice or outcome. But I don't find that very
satisfying.

Well, I'll say this discussion at least has inspired me to look a bit
closer at moderate-mechanics social rewards. I find the concept more
and more appealing the longer I think about it.

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[Del Rio]

In article <***@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For example, I can't imagine taking away a PC's tower and husband
>unless I had the permission of the player in the first place. To use
>old TV references, she may have been interested in a fantasy version of
>'Heart to Heart' and would be rightfully be terribly upset to suddenly
>find herself playing "The Fugitive" instead just because the GM thought
>it would make a better story (game).

The strong possibility of your character undergoing adversity
is in the social contract of most GM driven games. I agree
that it seems a little extreme to "take them away"; I assume in
the sense that the husband was unresurrectably killed, and the
tower destroyed or occupied by an unassailable enemy, with no
compensating opportunity (another tower, possibly a better
one?).

I have at times inflicted *enormous* adversity on characters,
but I confess that there are certain things, usually pretty
obvious ones, that are sacrosanct. To drag this back to where
the thread started out, I often find that the *most* important
thing to a player is the piece(s) of equipment that he most
strongly identifies his character with.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[gleichman]

Del Rio wrote:
> The strong possibility of your character undergoing adversity
> is in the social contract of most GM driven games.

I'm not certain what you mean by "GM driven", but my first reaction is
a campaign when the GM is telling his story instead of the players
telling theirs. I would imagine that yes, "enormous* adversity" would
be part of that.

Whatever the case, it's certainly something that the GM and the players
need to understand about one another before it blows up in their face.
Or at least something they come to understand before they start their
replacement campaign...

[gleichman]

"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

> Maybe, but it seems to me that the problem is with the bad guys
> generating a big enough "drop" on the PCs to justify a surrender.
> What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
> surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
> PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
> roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.

Interestingly enough, AoH has that exact rule.

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:03:44 -0600, gleichman wrote:

> Interestingly enough, AoH has that exact rule.

I've seen it in at least one other game, too. I can't remember which,
however.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Indiana Joe]

In article <ejccef$ham$***@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> > Interestingly enough, AoH has that exact rule.
>
> I've seen it in at least one other game, too. I can't remember which,
> however.

Hero has the "Cover" maneuver. You roll an attack, but not damage. You
may roll the damage at any time, regardless of other character's actions.

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:03:44 -0600, "gleichman"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>
>> Maybe, but it seems to me that the problem is with the bad guys
>> generating a big enough "drop" on the PCs to justify a surrender.
>> What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
>> surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
>> PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
>> roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.
>
>Interestingly enough, AoH has that exact rule.
>

And what's your experience with it? Does it get successfully used to
produce surrenders? My opinion above, I admit, is based on theory
without any real practical experience to back it up.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[gleichman]

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:03:44 -0600, "gleichman"
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Erol K. Bayburt" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Maybe, but it seems to me that the problem is with the bad guys
> >> generating a big enough "drop" on the PCs to justify a surrender.
> >> What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
> >> surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
> >> PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
> >> roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.
> >
> >Interestingly enough, AoH has that exact rule.
> >
>
> And what's your experience with it? Does it get successfully used to
> produce surrenders? My opinion above, I admit, is based on theory
> without any real practical experience to back it up.

It certainly works when it occurs, but I think that needs to be
considered in context.

Both campaigns using AoH that I have direct knowledge of are based on
extensive worlds that the players have a reasonable knowledge of,
including the character of many villains. They also tend to trust the
GMs of those worlds. As a result they know that there are those who
they can surrender to without it being in effect an TPK. They also have
a good idea when they are completely overmatched.

I do however feel that surrender storylines are best used sparingly.
Some of these can actually be fun for the player (what hero truly minds
being captured by the femme fatale) but most really aren't. IME players
are in the game for escapist adventure, not 5 hours of helpless
victimhood.

As a result most examples of capture in my games are the result of what
in other systems would be TPK. It's much easer in AoH to take a PC out
of the fight than it is to kill them so a victory by the bad guys
results in a bunch of now helpless prisoners instead of dead characters
which would be the common result in D&D.

[Will in New Haven]

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 12:18:04 -0800, "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David Meadows wrote:
> >> True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
> >> But I never impose an unwanted action on a PC (mind control being an
> >> exception, of course).
> >
> >There is a natural conflict between two genre conventions- the hero who
> >nevers gives up despite the odds, and the heroes who put their hands up
> >when the bad guys have the drop on them. The hero is seen brave in the
> >first and wise in the second. He can get away with this because the
> >writer selects the best response for his plot and frames it so that it
> >makes sense to his reader (or viewer).
> >
> >The problem in RPGs is that the plot isn't so easily given to the
> >players and even if was- that would be railroading and thus undesired
> >by many.
> >
> >I think such things are best handled by the group contract, agreement
> >that can allow the players to know worst case outcomes and could result
> >in more genre like surrenders. For example, an agreement that capture
> >players always get one escape attempt.
>
> Maybe, but it seems to me that the problem is with the bad guys
> generating a big enough "drop" on the PCs to justify a surrender.
> What's needed, IMO, is a game mechanic where the bad guys can call for
> surrender in between rolling to hit and rolling for damage, with the
> PCs only choice being either surrendering or sucking up the damage
> roll - no attempt at retconning the bad guy's roll to hit allowed.

Characters don't see "to hit" rolls or "damage" rolls. Why wouldn't
calls for surrender be outside the game mechanics? Usually, in any
case, the impetus to surrender comes from the surrendering side. You
throw up your hands and hope. There are foes against whom it would
never occur to one to do that but those guys aren't going to call for
your surrender anyway.

Will in New Haven

--

"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather



>
> --
> Erol K. Bayburt
> ***@aol.com

[David Alex Lamb]

In article <***@bt.com>,
Stephen McIlvenna <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Gambling on favourable dice rolls led to similar problems in a swashbuckling
>d20 campaign. The set up was supposed to be one where the villain has a
>sword to the sweetheart's throat and the heroes are forced to back-off.
>Brushing over some of the details, the experienced d20 player pointed out
>that, by the rules, the sweetheart was probably grappled and not actually
>helpless and thus could almost certainly survive a damage roll. In essence,
>her life was deemed not to be in real danger and so they charged.

Let's hear it for Extreme Metagaming. Of course, I've seen players argue, "of
course, our characters know how their world works, from long experience, and
so..." off into Order of the Stick land we go.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <ejg12t$fat$***@knot.queensu.ca>,
David Alex Lamb <***@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote:
>In article <***@bt.com>,
>Stephen McIlvenna <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Gambling on favourable dice rolls led to similar problems in a swashbuckling
>>d20 campaign. The set up was supposed to be one where the villain has a
>>sword to the sweetheart's throat and the heroes are forced to back-off.
>>Brushing over some of the details, the experienced d20 player pointed out
>>that, by the rules, the sweetheart was probably grappled and not actually
>>helpless and thus could almost certainly survive a damage roll. In essence,
>>her life was deemed not to be in real danger and so they charged.

>Let's hear it for Extreme Metagaming. Of course, I've seen players argue, "of
>course, our characters know how their world works, from long experience, and
>so..." off into Order of the Stick land we go.

On the other hand, it is *hard* for characters to ignore constant
experience of the way their world works: it feels stupid when
you risk everything to stop the girl from getting her throat
cut, she gets it cut anyway, and it hardly hurts her at all.

If you really want "I have the drop on you" to work in play, I think
you need rules that allow it to work. It is too much to ask the
players to ignore the rules constantly in making their decisions.
A few deliberate blind spots, okay, but wholesale ones are a
huge strain on the players.

In one of the early Shadowrun v1 modules (Maria Mercurial), the PCs
are at a meeting between their employer and a major NPC when the
NPC suddenly whips out a pistol and shoots their employer dead.
You could not *possibly*, with any level of skill, on any die roll,
do this under the rules, and my player was quite irritated by the
assertion that it happened. How could he make smart decisions for
his character if the rules-based "how the world works" was false?

The extreme form of this is the often-repeated story about the
mystery scenario at a convention where the players simply cast
Raise Dead on the murder victim. I think they were entitled.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <4558c9f7$0$8751$***@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
David Meadows <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> David Meadows wrote:

>> I note that you only apply such rules to NPCs and thus by-pass a
>> primary draw back of players seeing their characters give up.

>True. One of the annoying things about players is that they never give up!
>But I never impose an unwanted action on a PC (mind control being an
>exception, of course).

One of the weird things with AD&D, at least in my experience, is that
the PCs are frequently strategically correct not to give up if there is
any chance they'll win, even with heavy casualties. Dead PCs can be
Raised. Lost equipment is crippling; if you surrender and are
stripped, it may be a very long time before you are at your previous
level of capability, and in a forcing campaign scenario this may
mean you might as well be dead. I don't think my SCAP characters
could have made up the 150K gold pieces in time, for example, and
without that equipment the next scenario would have been certain death.
(I found out the hard way that the low-Dex fighter needed heavy
magical armoring: we called him "Bryce the damage magnet".)

But in a lot of campaigns the PCs are also more honorable than their
adversaries, so NPC surrenders to PCs should be more common than
the reverse. No one surrenders to a pack of ghouls....

I have to say, I play NPCs as surrendering when it seems appropriate,
and while I like to think I play my PCs equally realistically, I don't
think I have yet had a PC party of mine surrender--the situation just
hasn't arisen. We *have* seen two PC mass suicides (one mine, one Jon's)
to avoid capture. The campaign foes tend to be people (or creatures)
you just would not want to surrender to.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Stephen McIlvenna]

"Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:ejap5e$7e8$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> But in a lot of campaigns the PCs are also more honorable than their
> adversaries, so NPC surrenders to PCs should be more common than
> the reverse. No one surrenders to a pack of ghouls....

> The campaign foes tend to be people (or creatures)
> you just would not want to surrender to.
>
> Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

This has been one of my pet irritations for a long time. I can understand
that you don't surrender to a mindless beastie and that it often make no
sense to put yourself at the mercy of the sadistically evil bad guy, but I
can't believe that most of the mooks, minions and guards that populate
adventures fall into these categories. Unfortunately they usually do.

In our games, defeat by any enemy usually meant complete defeat of the
campaign goals, no low-level minions would ever offer a surrender, and no
important NPC had ever been captured and ransomed. For various reasons we
had played in a certain style for so long that the notion of fleeing or
surrendering just simply didn't occur. In most other aspects, I would say
that we portrayed level-headed characters involved in well thought out
storylines with sensible decision making based on reasonable premises. Yet
every combat became a computer game style
kill-all-the-opponents-before-they-kill-you.

I had promised myself that, if we ever did play again, my evil minions would
flee when badly injured, my dastardly lieutenants would offer a chance to
surrender during combat or beg mercy for their own lives, and that my
villainous brigands would use nonlethal (subdual) attacks. If the aim is for
player characters not to fight until their deaths, then they have to believe
that there is a viable option other than death.

Stephen
http://www.btinternet.com/~s.mci/

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:23:04 -0000, "Stephen McIlvenna"
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>"Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:ejap5e$7e8$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>>
>> But in a lot of campaigns the PCs are also more honorable than their
>> adversaries, so NPC surrenders to PCs should be more common than
>> the reverse. No one surrenders to a pack of ghouls....
>
>> The campaign foes tend to be people (or creatures)
>> you just would not want to surrender to.
>>

[snip]

>I had promised myself that, if we ever did play again, my evil minions would
>flee when badly injured, my dastardly lieutenants would offer a chance to
>surrender during combat or beg mercy for their own lives, and that my
>villainous brigands would use nonlethal (subdual) attacks. If the aim is for
>player characters not to fight until their deaths, then they have to believe
>that there is a viable option other than death.

Even if the main bad guys are foes you just don't want to surrender
to, it's possible to have secondary bad guys who are more morally
ambigious and "safe" to surrender to. E.g. Jabba the Hutt rather than
the Empire - or rather what Jabba would be if he were more mercenary
and less out to make an example of Han Solo and his friends.

Also, in these discussions about PCs getting captured, the talk is all
about getting the PCs to *surrender* rather than having them be
forcibly subdued or knocked out after fighting to the end - even
though forcible subdual/knockout is as, or more, common than
surrendering in genre fiction.

And then there are all the "surrenders" in fiction that are part of a
Clever Plan - not real, honest surrenders at all, but cheats, dirty
tricks, offers made in bad faith - and that's what the "good" guys do.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[gleichman]

Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
> And then there are all the "surrenders" in fiction that are part of a
> Clever Plan - not real, honest surrenders at all, but cheats, dirty
> tricks, offers made in bad faith - and that's what the "good" guys do.

Sort of depends on the fiction now doesn't it? Not all works have a
clue as to what is ethical behavior, often because their authors don't.
Nor do all works even have a good guy.

BTW I will point out that it is commonly understood in RL that a
surrendering foe not only is expected to attempt escape, but obligated
by duty and honor to do so. I'm not sure if that was part of your
example, but wished to point it out just in case in fell in there.

[Thomas Lindgren]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> BTW I will point out that it is commonly understood in RL that a
> surrendering foe not only is expected to attempt escape, but obligated
> by duty and honor to do so. I'm not sure if that was part of your
> example, but wished to point it out just in case in fell in there.

Not always; there is always the parole of honour. E.g., the OED
defines this as "word of honour, given or pledged; esp. mil., the
undertaking given by a prisoner of war that he will not try to escape,
or that, if liberated, he will return to custody under stated
conditions, or will refrain from taking up arms against his captors
for a stated period, generally for so long as the war then going on
shall last". (First reference: 1616.)

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[gleichman]

Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > BTW I will point out that it is commonly understood in RL that a
> > surrendering foe not only is expected to attempt escape, but obligated
> > by duty and honor to do so. I'm not sure if that was part of your
> > example, but wished to point it out just in case in fell in there.
>
> Not always; there is always the parole of honour. E.g., the OED
> defines this as "word of honour, given or pledged; esp. mil., the
> undertaking given by a prisoner of war that he will not try to escape,
> or that, if liberated, he will return to custody under stated
> conditions, or will refrain from taking up arms against his captors
> for a stated period, generally for so long as the war then going on
> shall last". (First reference: 1616.)

True enough, however that is condition given by the captive (freely if
it is to be considered binding) above and beyond that of simple a
surrender. In 'good guys' terms, it's really nothing more than honoring
your own word.

[Thomas Lindgren]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:

> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
> > "gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > BTW I will point out that it is commonly understood in RL that a
> > > surrendering foe not only is expected to attempt escape, but obligated
> > > by duty and honor to do so. I'm not sure if that was part of your
> > > example, but wished to point it out just in case in fell in there.
> >
> > Not always; there is always the parole of honour. E.g., the OED
> > defines this as "word of honour, given or pledged; esp. mil., the
> > undertaking given by a prisoner of war that he will not try to escape,
> > or that, if liberated, he will return to custody under stated
> > conditions, or will refrain from taking up arms against his captors
> > for a stated period, generally for so long as the war then going on
> > shall last". (First reference: 1616.)
>
> True enough, however that is condition given by the captive (freely if
> it is to be considered binding) above and beyond that of simple a
> surrender. In 'good guys' terms, it's really nothing more than honoring
> your own word.

Agreed. It's an option for moving along a campaign, at least. (And
maybe the more cynical NPCs instead would use geases or something?)

Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren

"Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."

[David Alex Lamb]

In article <***@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
gleichman <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>True enough, however that is condition given by the captive (freely if
>it is to be considered binding) above and beyond that of simple a
>surrender. In 'good guys' terms, it's really nothing more than honoring
>your own word.

I was under the impression that "coerced => not binding" was a relatively
recent idea. Otherwise "parole as a prisoner" would be meaningless.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

[gleichman]

"David Alex Lamb" <***@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:ejg1bd$gd3$***@knot.queensu.ca...
> I was under the impression that "coerced => not binding" was a relatively
> recent idea. Otherwise "parole as a prisoner" would be meaningless.

I'd have to look up the history to directly answer your point, but I don't
think it's necessary. For points of honor and 'good guys', our requirements
are either 'recent' or from our own culture which is as they should be.
After all, we were speaking of *our* reactions to events- not those of
someone else (including PCs/NPCs).

[Will in New Haven]

gleichman wrote:
> Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
> > And then there are all the "surrenders" in fiction that are part of a
> > Clever Plan - not real, honest surrenders at all, but cheats, dirty
> > tricks, offers made in bad faith - and that's what the "good" guys do.
>
> Sort of depends on the fiction now doesn't it? Not all works have a
> clue as to what is ethical behavior, often because their authors don't.
> Nor do all works even have a good guy.
>
> BTW I will point out that it is commonly understood in RL that a
> surrendering foe not only is expected to attempt escape, but obligated
> by duty and honor to do so. I'm not sure if that was part of your
> example, but wished to point it out just in case in fell in there.

That's only true if you are talking about a force of soldiers
surrendering. When I surrendered to the cops in Panama City, Florida
many years ago, they would have treated an escape attempt as something
quite unexpected and dishonarble. They nver even mentioned it as a
possibility. It was just assumed, just as the opposite would be assumed
in a prisoner of war situation. They did keep telling me to stop
singing. In fact, eventually they begged me to stop singing.

Which convention would apply in an rpg setting would depend on the
nature of the respective sides. The convention might be that a knight
would not attempt to escape once she had given her parole but that
commoners had to be kept under guard. Or something else entirely.

Will in New Haven

--

"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather

[gleichman]

"Will in New Haven" <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:***@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That's only true if you are talking about a force of soldiers
> surrendering.

We were talking good guys surrendering to bad guys. Not the reverse.

Context is everything.

[Will in New Haven]

gleichman wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:***@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > That's only true if you are talking about a force of soldiers
> > surrendering.
>
> We were talking good guys surrendering to bad guys. Not the reverse.
>
> Context is everything.

"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are
the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There
are, always and only, the bad people, but *some of them are on
opposite sides.*" -- Patrician Vetinari in Pratchett's /Guards!
Guards!/

Good guys need not be soldiers. The convention that escape attempts are
to be expected is a military convention. There are many bad guys to
whom it would be death to surrender and others who would be expected to
give honorable treatment. So context is very important.

Will in New Haven

--

"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather

[gleichman]

"Will in New Haven" <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:***@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

We have nothing further to talk about.

[Will in New Haven]

gleichman wrote:
> "Will in New Haven" <***@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
> news:***@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> We have nothing further to talk about.

You trying for "most easily offended" award?

Will in New Haven

--

"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:

>Also, in these discussions about PCs getting captured, the talk is all
>about getting the PCs to *surrender* rather than having them be
>forcibly subdued or knocked out after fighting to the end - even
>though forcible subdual/knockout is as, or more, common than
>surrendering in genre fiction.

Well, if you want it to happen more often, and you don't want to
change the rules, you need surrender--the knockouts are not really
in player control.

I have almost never seen a GM who wished to capture a party succeed
the way he wanted to. I don't try. If it happens, okay, but the
past record for deliberate attempts is *so* offputting, I'm not
willing to chance it. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it
seems to be true cross system. (I haven't played Hero, though.)

>And then there are all the "surrenders" in fiction that are part of a
>Clever Plan - not real, honest surrenders at all, but cheats, dirty
>tricks, offers made in bad faith - and that's what the "good" guys do.

In a game where we have a mutual agreement to follow genre
conventions, I could see doing this. Without them, the situation
doesn't seem to arise very often (except for 1 or 2 round bluffs).
I think it reduces the credibility of the opponents if they are
capable of beating the PCs but not capable of keeping them
prisoner after stripping them, in a setting with magic especially--
and too stupid to know this is the case (in which case they
should not capture, but kill or strip-and-release immediately).

Once, maybe. Routinely, no.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:28:43 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Also, in these discussions about PCs getting captured, the talk is all
>>about getting the PCs to *surrender* rather than having them be
>>forcibly subdued or knocked out after fighting to the end - even
>>though forcible subdual/knockout is as, or more, common than
>>surrendering in genre fiction.
>
>Well, if you want it to happen more often, and you don't want to
>change the rules, you need surrender--the knockouts are not really
>in player control.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the NPCs want to capture the
PCs, the NPCs can strike for non-lethal damage or otherwise act to
capture rather than kill. OTOH if the NPCs attitude is "surrender or
die" the PCs are more apt to die than either surrender or "just" get
knocked out. Is that what you mean?

>
>I have almost never seen a GM who wished to capture a party succeed
>the way he wanted to. I don't try. If it happens, okay, but the
>past record for deliberate attempts is *so* offputting, I'm not
>willing to chance it. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it
>seems to be true cross system. (I haven't played Hero, though.)

Were those attempts to capture the party attempts to make the party
surrender, or attempts to knock them out with non-lethal damage? Or
some of both? I can see some capture-adverse PCs suiciding when they
realize that the enemy is using non-lethal attacks in an attempt to
capture them, but that strikes me as rather extreme. Is that what you
mean? Or is it a matter that the players don't want to continue when
their characters wake up as captives, after the fight?

>
>>And then there are all the "surrenders" in fiction that are part of a
>>Clever Plan - not real, honest surrenders at all, but cheats, dirty
>>tricks, offers made in bad faith - and that's what the "good" guys do.
>
>In a game where we have a mutual agreement to follow genre
>conventions, I could see doing this. Without them, the situation
>doesn't seem to arise very often (except for 1 or 2 round bluffs).
>I think it reduces the credibility of the opponents if they are
>capable of beating the PCs but not capable of keeping them
>prisoner after stripping them, in a setting with magic especially--
>and too stupid to know this is the case (in which case they
>should not capture, but kill or strip-and-release immediately).
>
>Once, maybe. Routinely, no.

Well, it does require an agreement to follow genre conventions, or
NPCs who have strong reasons to underestimate the PCs ability to
escape (without also underestimating the ability of other NPCs to
escape), or some sort of regular ransom custom. Otherwise, as you say,
the opponents will lose credibility.


--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Erol K. Bayburt <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:28:43 +0000 (UTC),
>***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>>Well, if you want it to happen more often, and you don't want to
>>change the rules, you need surrender--the knockouts are not really
>>in player control.

>I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the NPCs want to capture the
>PCs, the NPCs can strike for non-lethal damage or otherwise act to
>capture rather than kill. OTOH if the NPCs attitude is "surrender or
>die" the PCs are more apt to die than either surrender or "just" get
>knocked out. Is that what you mean?

Okay, I was unclear. Sorry. I felt the discussion was going in
the direction of "What can the players do?" and that requires
surrender, as the players have relatively little control over whether
PCs get knocked out (unless they are using fatigue-burning attacks
as in Shadowrun).

Certainly the NPCs can act to try to capture the PCs, and it would
make sense for them to do so if a surrender/ransom tradition
exists. (And if the rules support it--if you want this to happen,
having rules that make it relatively easy really helps.)

>>I have almost never seen a GM who wished to capture a party succeed
>>the way he wanted to. I don't try. If it happens, okay, but the
>>past record for deliberate attempts is *so* offputting, I'm not
>>willing to chance it. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but it
>>seems to be true cross system. (I haven't played Hero, though.)

>Were those attempts to capture the party attempts to make the party
>surrender, or attempts to knock them out with non-lethal damage? Or
>some of both?

Attempts to make the party surrender are generally understood to be
risky; I'm thinking mainly of attempts to knock them out and capture
them, though there have been one or two of the other kind.

Various things go wrong. The PCs pull a rabbit out of their hats
and win the encounter that was supposed to capture them. They pull
such a risky rabbit that they all die. They commit suicide.
Half of them pull out leaving the other half behind, and then decline
to attempt a rescue ("why should we think we can win at half strength
when we lost at full strength?") If there are "bleeding" rules,
they prolong the fight long enough for the first-dropped characters
to bleed to death. They infuriate the foe to the degree that capture
is no longer plausible....

In Shadowrun v1 you could cast a spell much too big for you, at the
cost of dying; characters would do that. (Admittedly the Shadowrun
campaign enemy was someone you did *not* surrender to; after a few
iterations of seeing their previous allies turn into loyal servants
of the enemy, the PCs knew that.)

>I can see some capture-adverse PCs suiciding when they
>realize that the enemy is using non-lethal attacks in an attempt to
>capture them, but that strikes me as rather extreme. Is that what you
>mean? Or is it a matter that the players don't want to continue when
>their characters wake up as captives, after the fight?

That's happened too. If the players considered the fight a lethal
fight, in particular, they may regard the outcome as a loss and
simply be annoyed that "the GM is giving us an out."

I'm thinking of a game back in Berkeley where the GM did too many
iterations of "put forward a too-powerful foe and then look for a
way to allow the PCs to win." She finally put forward a foe that
the PCs could not possibly beat. When it captured the PCs, the
game essentially crashed: the players felt that the PCs should be
dead, and regarded the capture as a craven attempt by the GM to
weasel out of her bad scenario design. (But the game was on its
last legs anyway by that point.)

Player morale is definitely a consideration here. A clear ransom
tradition would help: it is hard to think of surrender/capture
as an option if you haven't seen it used in the game.

It is also easier to consider partial-defeat scenarios if the PCs
have relatively more choice in picking their targets. I know I'm
not alone in *bitterly* resenting it if the GM uses our agreed-on
game contract to force the PCs into a scenario, and then makes
the scenario one they can't win. If the PCs picked their own
fight, losing is not so infuriating.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Del Rio]

In article <***@bt.com>,
Stephen McIlvenna <***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Mary K. Kuhner" <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:ejap5e$7e8$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>> But in a lot of campaigns the PCs are also more honorable than their
>> adversaries, so NPC surrenders to PCs should be more common than
>> the reverse. No one surrenders to a pack of ghouls....
>
>> The campaign foes tend to be people (or creatures)
>> you just would not want to surrender to.
>
>This has been one of my pet irritations for a long time. I can understand
>that you don't surrender to a mindless beastie and that it often make no
>sense to put yourself at the mercy of the sadistically evil bad guy, but I
>can't believe that most of the mooks, minions and guards that populate
>adventures fall into these categories. Unfortunately they usually do.
>
>In our games, defeat by any enemy usually meant complete defeat of the
>campaign goals, no low-level minions would ever offer a surrender, and no
>important NPC had ever been captured and ransomed. For various reasons we
>had played in a certain style for so long that the notion of fleeing or
>surrendering just simply didn't occur.

This is one of the reasons that in my current campaign, I have
moved away from the heroic fantasy paradigm and simultaneously
away from "good" vs. "evil", and I am attempting a medieval
themed campaign.

In the medieval world, a knight's opponents were his social
peers, just fighting under the wrong banner. He wouldn't kill
his peers, unless forced to it, and accepting their surrender
(sometimes surrendering to them) and working out ransom was
just part of the way of life. Heck, even at a tourney, if you
lost in a joust or melee, you gave up your horse and equipment,
and had to ransom them back from the victor, sometimes at
enormous cost.

That's not to say that there are no groups whom you definitely
wouldn't wish to be captured by. For example, Orcs in my
campaign will be playing a role similar to the great Mongol
hordes that ravaged Europe in the early middle ages, Barbarians
will be more along the lines of Vikings, and there will be some
of human societies that will have less finely developed notions
of proper treatment of prisoners of war. But "most" groups
would recognise that taking a prisoner who could be profitably
ransomed is more useful than creating corpses.

And btw, the fact that this is a very low magic campaign means
that a group losing all its equipment would be painful but not
devastating.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."

[gleichman]

Del Rio wrote:
> This is one of the reasons that in my current campaign, I have
> moved away from the heroic fantasy paradigm and simultaneously
> away from "good" vs. "evil", and I am attempting a medieval
> themed campaign.

I don't think one needs to move away from heroic fantasy for this, one
just needs to move away from a certain mindset when running heroic
fantasy.

Even being captured by man-eating spiders in the Hobbit and LotR wasn't
a TPK, but rather a chance for heroic rescue. People tend to fixate on
the worse case outcome, and it's a good thing the writers of epic
fantasy didn't- or else those would have been short books indeed.

[David Meadows]

"gleichman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Del Rio wrote:
> > This is one of the reasons that in my current campaign, I have
> > moved away from the heroic fantasy paradigm and simultaneously
> > away from "good" vs. "evil", and I am attempting a medieval
> > themed campaign.
>
> I don't think one needs to move away from heroic fantasy for this, one
> just needs to move away from a certain mindset when running heroic
> fantasy.
>
> Even being captured by man-eating spiders in the Hobbit and LotR wasn't
> a TPK, but rather a chance for heroic rescue. People tend to fixate on
> the worse case outcome, and it's a good thing the writers of epic
> fantasy didn't- or else those would have been short books indeed.

Some of my favourite scenarios have been heroic rescues after some or all of
the characters have been captured by evil forces. The team of "substitute
heroes" has become almost a cliche for us, where the free PCs scrape the
bottom of the barrel to recruit kid sidekicks, retired comrades, etc. (in
other words, we have to find characters for all the captured players to
play) in order to storm the villain's fortress against insurmountable odds.
These scenarios have a lot of tension and drama because the stakes are so
high (including to the players personally because it's their PCs on the
line) and because the rescue party inevitably feels inadequate. (It was one
such scenario that resulted in a rare villain death, through a combination
of desperation and inexperience on the part of the rescue squad. That had
repercussions long afterwards...)


--
David Meadows
"I lost her under the floorboards for three weeks!"
-- Grandfather Yun, HEROES issue 38
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:59:51 -0800, gleichman wrote:

> Exception might be made for certain types of what HERO would call
> "Killing Attacks"- but those can be controlled for game tone by being
> allowed or disallowed up front. That is you only let them in (at lethal
> levels) if you *want* people to be killed.

I explained this to a D&D-only player as "the switch that flips between
the DC/Marvel universe and Stormwatch/The Authority".

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 12:06:24 -0800, DougL wrote:

> Casters get flashy new spells with fancy names, fighters get just
> another +1 to hit and/or to damage or to AC, but those +1s just keep
> adding up.

So do the hit points, and the save bonuses, and the feats. Likewise for
barbarians the extra class abilities add up over time.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:31:23 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:

>>But a 12th level character *also* gains a roughly 40% boost in power
>>on gaining a level. This also gives him the feel of being a beginner,
>>a novice who still has a lot to learn. However, IMAO, this feeling is
>>utterly *in*appropriate for a 12th level character, and the system is
>>wrong to try to force that feeling.
>
>How do you figure 40% for anything but casters? It sure doesn't
>feel like that for my grunt fighter or my rogue. They get better
>(which is an improvement over v1, where rogues just stopped getting
>better after a point) but it's incremental, and for some levels
>the increment is quite small.

Mostly theory, i.e. according to theory noncasters are *suppose* to
double in power every two levels, which means +40% per level.

But also the treasure gain ( = magic item gain).

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:21:39 -0600, Erol K. Bayburt
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:31:23 +0000 (UTC),
>***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
>>>But a 12th level character *also* gains a roughly 40% boost in power
>>>on gaining a level. This also gives him the feel of being a beginner,
>>>a novice who still has a lot to learn. However, IMAO, this feeling is
>>>utterly *in*appropriate for a 12th level character, and the system is
>>>wrong to try to force that feeling.
>>
>>How do you figure 40% for anything but casters? It sure doesn't
>>feel like that for my grunt fighter or my rogue. They get better
>>(which is an improvement over v1, where rogues just stopped getting
>>better after a point) but it's incremental, and for some levels
>>the increment is quite small.
>
>Mostly theory, i.e. according to theory noncasters are *suppose* to
>double in power every two levels, which means +40% per level.
>
>But also the treasure gain ( = magic item gain).

And to followup on my own comment: You have a point. The never-slowing
power curve is mostly driven by spells & magic, and non-casters
wouldn't suffer from it (or at least not so much) if it weren't for
magic items, buffs, and special abilities tacked on to help the
high-level non-casters "keep up" with the casters.

--
Erol K. Bayburt
***@aol.com

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:31:23 +0000, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> In our hands time from 2nd to 3rd and time from 7th to 8th are
> the same. And this really does make characters feel as though
> they are always beginners.

That's the way it's supposed to work in 3.x, though for our group
advancement slowed up a lot above about 14th level, in large part because
we got far fewer meaningful combats in each session, due to the high
setup time for each combat or foray into enemy territory (for both players
and GM).

> How do you figure 40% for anything but casters? It sure doesn't feel
> like that for my grunt fighter or my rogue. They get better (which is
> an improvement over v1, where rogues just stopped getting better after a
> point) but it's incremental, and for some levels the increment is quite
> small.

It's what the system assumes, and on average it does actually work that
way if you compare them to other warrior-types of a level or two lower and
higher, or likely opponents (for example, at 5th level a single fighter is
likely to have trouble with a troll, but at 7th he'll probably just get a
bit beaten up, and at 9th the troll is meat).

> We ran SCAP from 2nd to just below 9th, and the previous v3.5 game from
> 2nd to just below 6th. The big jumps are 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th for
> the party as a whole, driven by casters; the non-casters had the biggest
> jump, if I recall correctly, at 6th (second attack). My impression was
> that 2nd to 3rd doubles the power of the party and this does not ever
> happen again (in the levels I've explored).

For fighters 4th level is a big deal - you get two feats, and they can
include Weapon Specialisation and Great Cleave (which is usually useful
for maybe two levels and then a waste of a feat, IME), and a stat
improvement. 6th is also a big deal for fighters (two feats, all saves
improve, extra attack). 5th sucks for fighters, but is okay to good for
other combat classes (and spellcasters).

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[Mary K. Kuhner]

In article <ej87i2$37u$***@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:31:23 +0000, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

>> In our hands time from 2nd to 3rd and time from 7th to 8th are
>> the same. And this really does make characters feel as though
>> they are always beginners.

>That's the way it's supposed to work in 3.x, though for our group
>advancement slowed up a lot above about 14th level, in large part because
>we got far fewer meaningful combats in each session, due to the high
>setup time for each combat or foray into enemy territory (for both players
>and GM).

I'm not sure that would count as "slow" for me, if the number of
situations was the same.

The GM asked, in some annoyance, why the several relatively easy encounters
before the game-breaker didn't do anything to improve PC (or player)
morale. I said immediately "None of them were easy" which was factually
untrue but the way it felt. On thinking this over carefully, it's
because I had been unable to update my idea of the characters' capabilities
since around 5th level. At the game-breaker the PCs were 8th level
but we had never seen them cast a 4th level spell, never seen one of
the fighters use his most recent feat--there simply hadn't been any
opportunities. I had an intuitive idea what the characters could do, but
it dated from the last level where they had actually fought a reasonable
number of different engagements. So everything seemed dreadfully hard, as
it would have for 5th level opposition.

I think that if I play any more v3.5 it has to be cut down to 1/3
advancement. Unfortunately this will break all of the mega-modules, probably
beyond our ability to fix, but it can't be helped. I estimate I need
about 10-15 encounters/level to retain any competence, and at the book
rate, I'm not getting them--discounting a few which are so trivial they
do nothing to display PC capabilities or tactics.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

[Rupert Boleyn]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:19:46 +0000, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> I think that if I play any more v3.5 it has to be cut down to 1/3
> advancement. Unfortunately this will break all of the mega-modules, probably
> beyond our ability to fix, but it can't be helped. I estimate I need
> about 10-15 encounters/level to retain any competence, and at the book
> rate, I'm not getting them--discounting a few which are so trivial they
> do nothing to display PC capabilities or tactics.

The books (as in PH & DMG) assume about 13 encounters per level, most of
them at the 'standard' level, which isn't much of a challenge, but should
cost resources. IME at lower enough levels that the system hasn't gone
crazy, such an encounter isn't likely to go wrong, but careless play means
it costs resources you need later.

However, many GMs and a great many published modules never seem to have
easier than 'standard' encounters, and have plenty of harder than normal
ones. This speeds up advancement, makes PC deaths more likely, and makes
it harder to balance party wealth right. IOW, this makes the whole game
play more like it naturally does at high levels, and I have no idea why
this is felt to be a good thing. It also, IME pushes players to demand
more generous stat generation systems, and that distorts the system even
further.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>

[DougL]

On Nov 8, 5:41 pm, ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
wrote:
> What a coincidence: Warren started a thread on campaign deaths, and
> we seem to have a live (dead) example on hand.

My current campaign will probably die this weekend after over two years
of play. D&D3.5 (with houserules).

There are two problems:

(1) the PC's have made a series of mistakes that mean if I play it
"realistically" several PC's will be trapped on limited access
demiplanes they can't easily get out of by the end of the next session.
I could avoid this since there are reasonable alternatives, or those
players could make new characters, or we could play out the escape
attempts, but then we run into problem 2.

(2) DM fatigue. I use mostly custom monsters (at the minimum I roll
abilities and do a semi-random alignment and personality trait
generation); but many of the monsters are advanced.

Even with lots of automated tools this is a fair amount of work.

What's worse, the game system actively works against you on this. The
CRs for such creatures are utterly broken BtB, and while I can ad-hoc
CRs the results have too high an AC total and are a bit weak in
everything else for their adjusted CR which unballances the game.
(Delete long rant about why, if anyone really cares I can type it
again, but it's off topic.)

DougL

[Will in New Haven]

I read the faq. It doesn't say anywhere that no one will respond to
anythng you say if you break some kind of secret rule. I find this
stuff interesting enough and useful enough for my own game thoughts
that I might consider lurking here but you guys sure know how to make
someone feel unwelcome. I have been flamed in other ng and also had
many long and ineresting discsssions. Including in another gaming
group. However, I have never been ignored so resolutely. So long.

Will in New Haven

[Jeff Heikkinen]

Chances are suprisingly good that Will in New Haven was not wearing
pants when he or she said:
> I read the faq. It doesn't say anywhere that no one will respond to
> anythng you say if you break some kind of secret rule. I find this
> stuff interesting enough and useful enough for my own game thoughts
> that I might consider lurking here but you guys sure know how to make
> someone feel unwelcome. I have been flamed in other ng and also had
> many long and ineresting discsssions. Including in another gaming
> group. However, I have never been ignored so resolutely. So long.

What are you talking about? I see replies to nearly all of your posts.