|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 5:58AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
How many character deaths are you guys seeing during play? I don't have the opportunity to play right now, but I was going through the rules and it seemed that the characters have a very high survivability rate; 95% + over the course of a session. This, of course, is just entirely too high for the encounters to create any sense of dread and apprehension. I think 80% would be a lot more exciting; so that with 5 players its pretty unlikely that all of their characters will make it through the session.
Where do you think the default fatality level is currently set in DDN? Is this where you would like to see it kept?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:06AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
What is wrong with 95%+ survivability rate?
who wants to go to session with 3 spare characters prerolled?
PC's die if they are stupid and attack a target well over their level, or have a very bad luck spree.
If someone needs to die in sessions those are usually "redshirts" that tag along with PCs
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:13AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
|
What is wrong with 95%+ survivability rate?
who wants to go to session with 3 spare characters prerolled?
PC's die if they are stupid and attack a target well over their level, or have a very bad luck spree.
If someone needs to die in sessions those are usually "redshirts" that tag along with PCs
Agreed. If a character has a 20% death rate, they become dispsable and are less "character in a story" and more game piece on a board.
It moght be fun for some (not me) to watch (or DM) something like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead, where almost everyone is disposable. I don't think it would be much fun to play.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:19AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
I've downed PCs in earlier D&DN playtests (actually, 2 in the first one where they had more hp). I've almost downed several since then.
My style is to reward clever tactics/ideas. Otoh, anyone can die/go down.
I prefer for PCs to have more survivability. It makes for more sweet/epic combats.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:22AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 10, 2008
|
How would you design a test that could prove that the specific game element or rule changes you made resulted in a 15% increase in character deaths?
OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player.
3E challenged the character, not the player.
Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM.
That's why I love 4E.
"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:28AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
How would you design a test that could prove that the specific game element or rule changes you made resulted in a 15% increase in character deaths?
I was just running a few paper combats and that was my best guess. I'm not sure how you would do that mechanically, I bet James could figure it out though.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 6:42AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
What is wrong with 95%+ survivability rate?
who wants to go to session with 3 spare characters prerolled?
PC's die if they are stupid and attack a target well over their level, or have a very bad luck spree.
If someone needs to die in sessions those are usually "redshirts" that tag along with PCs
Agreed. If a character has a 20% death rate, they become dispsable and are less "character in a story" and more game piece on a board.
It moght be fun for some (not me) to watch (or DM) something like Game of Thrones or Walking Dead, where almost everyone is disposable. I don't think it would be much fun to play.
3 spares? That’s a bit overstated. I was thinking that 80% survive would get people through 2 or 4 sessions which is a pretty good run. So really one is plenty.
Re character vs game piece: do you play 4rth? That seems so war-gamey to me I just kind of think "game piece" anyway.
The other point is resurrection; that can be as common as the table wants it to be. In Hackmaster for instance minor rez is a 4rth level spell and pretty common, you get a limp, gimp or mental disorder out of the deal, but those are kind of fun anyway. So you can have a high mortality rate and still develop the same char if you want to. That has been my favorite middle ground over the years. It allows for continuity of char development and still supports an atmosphere of real danger and challenge.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 7:39AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2012
|
I am fine with a high survival rate in most RPGs (aside from Call of Cthulhu, or some post-apocalyptic settings). Although I haven't yet actually played the test packet, it has long been my experience that when a party of adventurers suffer a casualty there is often a domino effect where other casualties soon follow. Each member of the group has his/her role which they typically fulfill in combat, and when that character is removed it creates a vacuum in the tactical operation of the team (not to mention that it can devastate sub-plots and character development for everyone). Even if the player has a substitute character available, and it is rushed into play quickly, they aren't likely to have as much experience using their new abilities... and their teammates haven't had time to test out how their own characters best play off the newbie. A group who runs at a 95% survival rate can go through weeks of play without losing anyone, but then suffer a grievous defeat in which half the party (or more) die in a single session (or single encounter).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 7:56AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
It's a tad too survivable for our tastes. Potential for death should be ever present. After all, these aren't bakers, they're explorers and warriors. We usually figured that with an experienced party of 4 getting to about 10th level with average play there should be 2-4 deaths in a low res world, and closer to 8+ in a high res. Good play should reduce it to none or just a couple, and bad play should bring frequent TPK. But then, we prefer harsh games. Not Dark Sun harsh, but not rainbows and lollipops either.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 22, 2012 - 7:57AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2009
|
Character surviability is an area that will need to be adjusted to taste. We see an example of this already in the healing variant rules. Besides healing rate, there are other ways to affect how long a typical character lasts. The real point is finding the baseline that will be presented in the core rules. To find this baseline, we should look at the assumptions of the game. If the game assumes that most players will play a single adventure that lasts a few sessions, than higher mortality is fine. On the other hand, if the game assumes that most players are playing campaigns that span 10 or more levels and last months or years in real-world time, than the mortality rate should be much lower than 20%; probably something closer to 2 to 5%.
|
|
|
