No theorycrafting please.
So who is actually gonna use this spell?
People with sympathetic DMs.
...And Liches?
It would depend on what other spells I'd be trading off to use it, but otherwise it seems fine to me. It's more or less 100 damage to a creature, no attack roll needed or save allowed. Knock down that dragon to a 100 hit points and then finish him off with this spell? Sure, why not?
Does your DM tell you how many hp a critter has left? What do you think the odds are of guessing right?
Sorry, I am being argumentive. I just read the spell, and it's 9th level. I just found it a worthless joke. I'd take my chances with Finger of Death or Disintegrate in a 9th level slot.
NPCs, on the party, frequently.
Since I can't use theorycrafting for some reason (proof aversion?), I'll just respond by saying "I will", and leave it at that.
People who have the Monster Manual memorized, and who also make a habit of writing down how many hit points the group has inflicted on each of their foes. In short, accountants.
arnwolf666 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
I will never use any of the save-or-die spells as a DM, because they aren't fun for the players, and my job is to facilitate fun for the players.
I will probably never use save-or-die spells as a player for similar reasons.
Having players waste spell slots due to lack of stat information is pretty much Dick DM move #5. So yes, spells that have effect based on monster current HPs should have the players being able to tell when the HP reaches that point.
iserith wrote:
Leugren wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Novacat wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
It's likely to see lots of use in my games - both by my players that like spellcasters, and by the NPC spellcasters of high enough level.
And yes, I am the DM, and while I don't tell the players exactly how many HP their opponents have, I do tell them (both by description through narration, and specifically if they ask me) whether the spell will work or not, because I don't think that a player feeling like they "wasted" a limited resource is conducive to fun being had.
Ashrym wrote:
If a player indicates they want to use PWK on a monster who's above 100 hp, I feel it's my job as DM to describe the scene, what the PCs see. "It's been a long fight but the dragon is still hanging in there, determined to fight." That's from their POV.
I'd aso clarify, add my two cents: As described, PWK *compels* a creature to die, instantly. The dragon doesn't look like its ready to give up, not just yet anyway. It's 'determined to fight'.
When the monster is finally below 100 hp, I'd describe the scene once more (from their POV): "The dragon is stunned senseless. You see your chance."
= = =
This is for the player who wants to cast PWK. As DM, I feel it's my job to give the player that benefit. I don't feel like I need to say definatively that the monster is above or below 100 hp, because the PC wouldn't know that (not exactly). The PC would be on the lookout for any opening however. As DM, I just describe the changing scene (changing in respect to whether PWK is viable or not, that is).
iserith wrote:
Novacat wrote:
Comparing it to other 9th level spells, I think I would do something like this:
If a creature has more than 100 pts they make a Con. save. On a failed save the creature takes 100pts of damage, half that for a successful save.
Looking at the beastly damage meteor storm can do to multiple people, I don't think this would be considered too much.
Power Word stun is almost as bad. Gonna burn an 8th level spell for possibly a single round of stun. Seems to me it should be more like 1+1d4 rds before a save can be made against it.
autolycus wrote:
DSZ wrote:
iserith wrote:
I see it as sort of a mess because it requires a good DM to work.
While I don't like blanket statements where people say "This is bad DMing", I do feel in this situation that information is likely to be conveyed using normal play. I would never tell my players outright the exact number of hit points of a monster. I do though understand that my players have both eyes and experience and I am describing the decline of the monster as it takes damage. This is why I don't consider hit point loss as invisible until the last hit point.
If I had a 300 hit point dragon that was down to 50, I'd likely just say "Your experience tells you the dragon is has been weakened enough to be affected". In the same regard perhaps at 150 or above I can easily answer "The dragon still seems pretty strong though wounded". Only in the grey area would I perhaps respond with "you are not sure. It's close." I tend to want my players acting on what they can actually see. I'm maintaining actor stance.
I would not at all though feel obligated to tell the caster if the target had some defense that was not known to the group. Perhaps an amulet of protection from death spells (made up just an example). Such an amulet would likely be tucked away beneath the targets clothing.
iserith wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
eleran wrote:
Alright, another Houserule for me.
PWK now simply works, regardless of HP.
Also considering dropping PWS to 5th level.
Arithezoo wrote:
I'd give my players a Int or Wis (Nature) check. If I just gave them that information, it might be a slippery slope of them coming up with reasons to get information in other respects. If I keep things check gated it gives me more leeway.
Win-Win for me. Players have a chance at the information, but there's also a chance it remains a mystery. Which makes the spell choice more interesting in my opinion. If you never give the info, or always give the info, the spell ends up very binary in either case. Very uninteresting.
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
PWK is no worse than a standard save or die spell, it just changes the victory conditions. Here's why: A standard SOD spell gives the target a save. On success, the spell is wasted. PWK moves the failure and success condition to caster guesswork, with the same possible outcomes.
Now, I personally think D&D should involve a certain amount of player guesswork (see many 1st edition dungeons for reference). Some of you obviously don't, and that's fine. But the design and intent of PWK is not wrong.
eleran wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I will use this spell. Both as a Player, and as a DM.
In both cases, it will be without knowing what the targets HPs are.
However, as per the rules, "When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. "
When that shows up, it's time to toss out the PWK. There aren't a lot of things with 200 HP*!
*(Yes, there are some. I admit that. Resist the overpowering urge to find exceptions, my peers. Resist!)
DemoMonkey wrote:
FFSA
It doesn't matter if it's cuts and bruises. It matters that, as per the RAW, there is SOME indication in-game when the target is at 50% or less.
Whethers it's cuts, bruises, intestines trailing on the ground, shields flaring to ultraviolet, or the announcers voice saying "PLAYER 1 IS WOUNDED BADLY!!" is entirely up to you and the style of game you run.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
A lot can be imagined by the players themselves, they don't necessarily need all the details, their imaginations easily fill in any missing details, Horses inhale and exhale huge breaths of air, How much more so a massive dragon, I wonder? My imagination takes over from there.
When it comes to PWK however, a spell that works (or doesn't work) based on current HP however, I think the player needs as accurate a picture as possible (from the PC's perspective at least). In such case, things shouldn't be left up to the imagination.
So, the player indicates she want's to cast PWK. In my mind (as DM), this means the PC is actively looking for an opening. Is the spell viable or not? It's my job then to describe the scene (from the PCs perspective). Same thing if the player wanted to cast a fireball. Is there a clear shot or not (are other PCs in the way perhaps)? As DM, I'm the PCs eyes and ears.
There's an old theater adage: If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage. Solid description is just as important in a D&D game I think.
Just some more rambling thoughts 
.
As I see it, it's a scene-ending spell. Weaken the foe to a given threshold then expend your resources to end the scene with a single word with no possible recourse from the enemy since there is no attack roll required nor saving throw allowed. The only objection is to whether or not a character would know when the spell would be effective and that's resolved through taking an action to determine it through the basic conversation of the game and the DM at least giving the player a fair shot at knowing whether they can rely on their high-level resources or not.
Everyone should remember that a meaningful decision includes the word "meaningful". Just because a DM tells you the relative HP of the target does not make it a "meaningful" decision. If he flat out tells you whether or not the spell will word then it is a binary decision. Yes or no. Very uninteresting in the end. It eliminates dissatisfaction, but minimizes satisfaction. This is a decision, but not a meaningful one.
When you give the players a chance they may not succeed at, or maybe an estimation they can gather their own conclusions from, then the players make an informed decision that still includes risk. An actually meaningful decision. You give them information to make a guess, but not enough that it still remains a mystery in the end. This kind of decision includes the possibility of dissatisfaction, but produces much greater satisfaction when it does work because the player had to think about it and make a judgement call.
FFSAA wrote:
Nice post, jenks.
I personally prefer to take the judgment call outta spells like PWK if for no other reason then it's a very high level spell. I like some of the house rules I've seen in this thread so far, like making PWK do 100 hp damage automatically; the 'lingering' effect house rule is also nice.
I still like to maintain the illusion (if you will) of decision however, by describing things from the PCs perspective (they don't know precisely how many hp the monster actually has). I don't spell it out but it's still pretty clear I think. It should feel like a guess (whether it actually is or not).
Just bouncing off your post with my own thoughts.
Jenks wrote:
I'd ask the DM if I could make a wisdom check to determine if the spell would be effective (offering up an action as recompense). If I failed, I'd be happy wasting the spell. If I succeeded, I'd be happy that I got to use or not use the spell.
OrwellianHaggis wrote:
iserith wrote:
What this particular thread has established is that we all run our games differently. I, for one, am not a big fan of metagaming. It's one of those things that becomes a slippery slope. My players know that just because some guy is in a robe doesn't mean he's a squishy wizard and just because some girl has on plate doesn't mean she can't drop a fireball on your head. Same goes with hit points. I never give out an exact number of hit points. Doing that could also come back to bite you.
For example, what happens if I tell the players that a creature/NPC enemy has 80 HP left? The party, taking their lumps, gets the creature/NPC down to 20 HP, but it then proceeds to TPK them. Well, if I wouldn't have told the players the amount of HP it had, I could've just fudged it if I wanted and had the last shot it took drop it. But, that options off the table. If the party deserved to be TPK'd, then so be it. But, if they've been rolling bad all night and can't seem to catch a break, yeah I'll fudge some things here and there.
As far as PWK is concerned, isn't the chance of failure part of the fun? If I know I'm always going to succeed, there's no fun in that for me. There's no danger, no threat of defeat, no threat of death. Why bother? You get to a point where players expect to win all of the time and they feel that obstacles are just time delays not actual danger. We're first level? Cool. Let's go kill a troll until we run into something to mvoe the story along. As a DM, I give my players enough information so that their PCs can make informed decisions based on what is going on in-game. If they decide to use a 9th level spell and fail, so what? Does it suck that you wasted that slot for the day? Yep. It sucks. But, you know what? You rely on other resources to get it done, or you retreat and live to fight another day. Everybody doesn't get a trophy for just showing up. You have to earn it. And, you're going to experience ups and downs, wins and losses along the way.
I love the anticipation. The increased rythm of my heart as I realize that one more hit takes me out of the fight, as I realize this last spell I'm about to cast is do or die, as I realize that one more failure on a death save means I'll be rolling up a new character. My players feel the same way. This discussion would never come up around our table. Because, they and I know to take the bad with the good.
iserith wrote:
OrwellianHaggis wrote:
CCS wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
Artifact wrote:
Eh, I'm not a big fan of metagaming either, but on other the hand its an awfully big spell to be all or nothing. After reading through all the pros and cons I think I'm going to stick to the houserule: If the creature is over 100 hp's they get a save. 100 pts damage if they fail, 50 if they save. Still a decent amount of risk; 50 pts of damage is not very effecient for a 9th level spell and iit avoids all of the other issues being discussed.
arderkrag wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Considering most high level PCs will have over 100 hit points, I'd have my NPCs save that spell for the end. After all, Killing PCs by the rules is my business and business is good.
I have never played a D&D game ever where the DM told the players how many hit points a critter has.
arderkrag wrote:
If I had the power to automatically kill all Work 100 hp or less then you know that work would be seriously dead.
But the question for me would be, how much work is 100hp worth? Obviously it must be more then mowing the lawn but is it as much as, say, painting the house?
arnwolf666 wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
AtomicPope wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
What about house ruling that the spell just does 100 hp damage, no matter what? If it drops you to 0 or less, you die (no death saves).
The tension is between campaign goals. If like me you value actor stance and want to avoid metagaming then there are limits to knowledge I'll hand out. Still I believe hit point damage is generally visible unlike many. So there is really only a narrow band where I'd consider it impossible to discern.
My players value authentic over artificial story. My players strive for the same viewpoints and feelings of their PCs which means sometimes they are not happy with a result specifically but they are happy overall because they want that authenticity of experience. They don't want to feel like they are playing a board game and moving around a plastic piece.
iserith wrote:
BTShire wrote:
I doubt I'd use it. I wish the spell was a bonus action to cast. Back in 1e and 2e when the game had cast times, power word spells had a cast time of 1, where meteor swarm had a cast time of 9 I think. This meant power words got off really quick, and your other high level spells had a solid chance of getting interrupted. Without cast times(which were the real strength of power word spells) a bonus action to cast would be a decent spin on that. Weaker than meteor swarm sure, but at least its easy/quick to cast.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Dracones wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Jenks wrote:
The spell is very dramatic.
It won't always be used against level 17-20 targets. So sometimes you don't even need to worry about HP.
I could see a villain with this spell as the main antagonist for a party at 7th level or above.
In the first scene where the party barges in on the BBEG, he slays one of them with a single word before teleporting away.
The party scrapes together their resources to bring back their lost companion. And then begin the long trek for revenge/justice.
With a PC wizard I could use it against any number of lower level threats to quickly end a war by killing the enemy general with a word. One or two displays of this kind of power and the rank-and-file will take you very seriously.
autolycus wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
When DMing, I don't tell the players how many HP the monster has.
I also don't ask them how many HP their characters have in combat
Fair's fair, after all.
I've heard of games where the players themselves don't know exactly how many hit points their PCs have.
Now that gives me something to think about.
"I've heard of games where the players themselves don't know exactly how many hit points their PCs have."
I've tried that. It works on a conceptual level; it's just inconvenient, and it loads more work onto the DM. It was a fun experiment, but we didn't find the payoff worth the nuisance.
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like DSZ's idea for lingering effects (post #30). If PWK comes up in our games, think I'm gonna snatch dat idea.
I have this image in my head of a massive dragon suddenly realizing. . . something's not right . . . what's wrong with me!?
. . . and suddenly falling over (once it hts 100 hp). Sucker !
Tangential question;
Seeing as PWK simply kills outright without affecting HPs, could you use it to kill a polymorphed target?
Slyck314 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
I would agree. PWK will kill that poor goldfish that was once a titanic building crushing monster dead dead dead.
Almost like a 17th level wizard is powerful or something.
Huh.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"PWK sure as hell wouldn't knock the tarrasque prone though, amirite?!"
You are right. Being rendered unconscious by being reduced to 0 HP will knock you prone, as per the damage rules and the condition "Unconscious" in the appendix.
There is however no rule that says being dead, without being reduced to 0 HP, would knock you prone. And only the most tyrranical of DMs would arbitrarily just add a rule like that.
So that dead Tarrasque remains upright. It's so nice we can finally agree on something.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Nope. Care to guess why?
My guess is because you like saying "Nope."
Incorrect!
Want to go for the bonus round, where the scores can REALLY change?
DemoMonkey wrote:
You two really need to get a room.
iserith wrote:
In my games, the relative portion of hit points remaining is generally known. Not down to the single digits but generally. That is because wounds are happening. The original max hit poitns though is not known. Obviously a really big creature has a lot and PCs would know that. Whether you have a 10th level fighter with 100 or a 1st level fighter with 10 is another matter. That would not be discernable in my games. I usually use terms like "He's really hurting" or "He's take a few wounds but he still seems pretty strong". Thats the type of information my players get for free.
So I am agreeing with the "poster who asks to remain unquoted" like 90% of the time. My reasons are driven though by world reality and not metagaming.
arnwolf666 wrote:
In about 1/4 of the games I've played over the years the DM has given the remaining HP of a given creature. Funny enough, this includes old man Gygax himself.
In about 1/2 of the games I've played the DM has given relative remaining HP: it's unharmed, below half, under a quarter, near death, etc.
There are a lot of ways for DMs to run a game.
I have seen nothing in the rules saying that players know the hit points of their opponent. I have never experienced it in play ever. Maybe this will be a good one to put in the FAQ.
arnwolf666 wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Power Word Kill has been around since at least since 2e. So this isn't exactly a new issue. A spell with this much history has to have been clarified before (somewhere). Sage Advice tackled issues like this regularly. I'll see what I can dig up (it'll just take some time).
iserith wrote:
"What do you say to me?"
It will take an action to study the creature. Make an Intelligence (Nature) check or Wisdom (Medicine) check (your choice), and an Intelligence (Arcana) check. You can make both rolls in the same action.
Orethalion wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Just have the spell deal 100 points of damage. If it reduces the creature to 0 HPs, the creature dies.
Done.
Arithezoo wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Everyone is making the assumption that the player wasn't prepared for the possibility their spell may not work when they took it in the first place.
By the time a Wizard hits 17th level in a campaign, they will have known for a LOOOOONG time whether the DM will tell them the enemies HP or not. When they level up and choose their first 9th level spell, they will already know whether there will be an element of guesswork in it's use. If they think potentially failing when it's used would spoil their fun they shouldn't take the spell.
This is another one of those situations where the problem will never actually occur at a table. We seem to argue about a surprising number of those.
Arithezoo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'm under no inclination right now to read this thread past page 1 and bus of this last one, but I would like to point out one thing:
The section on hp says there is a visual change when someone reaches less than half hp remaining. (They don't call it Bloodied, but it's familiar to everyone who played the last edition.)
If a player has been paying attention to how much damage the party had been doing, then they should have a good idea how much damage it took to get to that point, barring any healing the target may have received.
It's some very simple math to go from there to knowing when the target has less than 100 hp left.
Ravenmancer wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
And the players at those tables will understand that by the time PWK is an option and will also understand that the spell will be a all or nothing crap shoot. Expectations will be met, so no problem. Just as those players at completely transparent tables will know that they can use it it with certainty. Is the spell more effective at some tables rather then other, sure but that doesn't really bother the players at either table as their expectations are going to be met.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Expectations are everything. I try not to be a gotcha DM. I want players to know before they prepare or choose a spell how I will adjudicate it. But by the time they are 17th level they will know I don't tell them the number of hit points of a critter.
hallows1999 wrote:
I gotta say there's some pretty ridiculous arguments in this thread.
The fact that the spell is a gamble is the whole point! If your GM tells you when it works and when it doesn't, then it's easily the most powerful spell in the game, what with insta-death that allowes for no safe and no spell resistance.
A good GM is going to describe the scene accurately when you ask about it, and then let you make the decision of whether using it is worth it or not. Only a bad GM is going to hold your hand for when you should cast your most powerful spells.
I'm perfectly happy giving my players rough HP info if they make appropriate skill checks, but it's not being a dick to not give them exact information, and it's certainly not being a dick not to inform them ahead of time precisely when the monster is PWK-OK. If anything, I think it adds a bit of dramatic tension for them for there to be a margin of error. The uncertainty tends to make them do a bit more damage than they need to, but if they fire it off at 30 or 40hp instead of 100, they're still usually just as happy when the monster dies (anything worth a 9th level slot is going to feel good to kill, 'efficiently' or no.
As for if I'd use it, speaking mostly from the GM perspective... on an appropriate level Necromancer? Sure. Such a character isn't likely to appear more than once a game, and death ward and revivify exist. Fair game.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
autolycus wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
For what it's worth, put me down as another DM who would straight-up tell a player if PWK would work. Because otherwise the spell is exceptionally useless.
Then again, I let my players play the game with the Monster Manual open if they want to, so mileage varies.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
iserith wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
The one who has requested he not be named is the King of metagaming so you can't really argue that line because he embraces it.
I tell my players what they see. I don't do anything to deliberately be "fair" if that does not match what is happening in the world. So no, I would not telegraph a shield spell unless that spell says it gives itself away by shimmering.
I tend to see hits doing real damage (at least fractionally) and thus I would tell my players the enemy looks weakened or not. If they think the guy is level X and the spell would work but in reality the guy is level X*2 and it won't work, I'm not going to sweat it. The spell has it's uses and if you can't stand the thought of failing due to lack of knowledge on some occasions then do not take the spell. It does not invalidate the value of the spell though.
TehSchwann wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
You've asserted that, but I don't see anything supporting that assertion.
I think pretty much any of these playstyles are perfectly fine. I personally don't give the players exact HP info (though I may give very vague info at sight and slightly more info with checks). But if you want to record each monster's HP under its name on a dry erase board, that's perfectly fine too! Neither will break the game.
I also mess with standard MM monsters so that book knowledge isn't useful without in game knowledge. The troll might be suscepitble to something other than fire. Better seek out some lore before engaging! Am I a jerk? I don't think so.
bawylie wrote:
What's the difference between video games and table top RPGs? In that lifebars (and hit point tickers) are accepted in one type of game but not the other. Genuinely curious.
Our 4e games were (purposely) video gamey at times, which I (we) actually enjoyed. That's just me (most people don't seem to enjoy that sorta thing).
Allow a save if the creature is over 100.
Orethalion wrote:
Do you guys also tell the PCs how many monsters and which ones will fall asleep when a sleep spell is cast?
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
For those in the yes I tell camp I have a question.
If a party attacking a high level enchanter (level 18-20) and the finally make it to his chambers and confront him. Is the first thing he does is use a Power word kill to kill the most powerful character who has less than 100 HP (most likely the mage)? And if there were 2 characters he could cast it on, one of which has 101 HP and the other has 99 will he always target the character with 99 HP?
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
One style is story choreography and the other is true choices simulation.
Emerikol. wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Nothing wrong with other ways. It was just an example. Pick anything that isn't interesting enough to some people.
quote="MechaPilot"]
I don't see much difference there. I see both sides that you describe trying to be their characters. However, one group simply is also willing to add twists that they feel will add to the story while the other group leaves twists solely at the discretion of the DM. The only difference that I see is who is contributing to adding twists.
[/quote]
There is a massive difference. I can't simultaneously want the shortest easiest path to victory which is often what a character would want and also want to force that character down the most interesting path. If I'm really being my character I am not happy with defeat or serious setbacks. If I'm metagaming I may want a setback because that would heighten the tension and improve the story.
Think about it. You'll see where the two styles will often be at cross purposes. So what you want to do will dictate your style choice. Me. I want to be my character.
Emerikol. wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
iserith wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
iserith wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
You've got to be ignoring almost every dev interview where they talk about getting back to the stories and experiences that drive their love for this game. The nostalgia, the tales, not the system.
Youve got to be ignoring the front page of the website explaining what D&D is, or the text in the book.
This is is about campfire tales and legends. Whether you're exploring a world like Emerikol's band of archaeologist adventurers, LARPing like the kids by the train station, collaboratively inventing the story on the spot like Iserith, or getting a gut-wrenching from me, there's only one thing this game is truly about. Whether it's precrafted, emergent, resultant, or spontaneous, this game is about story.
Emerikol. wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
iserith wrote:
That's not a bad definition Iserith, but it could be improved.
"D&D is a collaborative storytelling game wherein the players attempt to overcome challenges presented by the DM in a world of swords and sorcery."
Victory is not always assured, after all.
First of all quoting the rules as if that makes it true is pretty stupid. Plenty of people have done things that are not verbatim for the rules. Even so misquoting the rules is even dumber. Stories emerge but is story the goal? Story is not always the goal. Story may be the goal for some playstyles. Other goals exist for other playstyles.
In my games, if an opportunity to short circut the entire adventure and go straight to the treasure presented itself then they would choose it every single time. Their objective was to get the treasure and not tell a story. It's my job as DM to make things hard for them. They do not play with that intent. They play to accomplish their in character goals. Kind of like being their characters and acting as their characters. Novel concept.
So please stop using the fact that stories emerge to argue that stories are the goal of the players. I've yet to see an actual game running where crafting a story was the ultimate goal of the players. I only hear about stuff like this online. So plenty of people out there are playing with different goals even if you can't conceive of that fact. Not just my campaign.
I can nostalgically talk with my buddies about playing football in high school and we can exchange "stories" about what we did. When playing, crafting a good story was NEVER our goal. We did collaborate as a team to achieve our objectives which was to beat the other team. Our goals were completed passes, solid runs, touchdowns, and so forth. The story was never on our minds. Not one of our players would have ran out of bounds at the one with ten seconds to go behind three points just to set up a goal line play for the game. The storytellers would do exactly that. They don't care about the character goals. They care about their player goals for the story.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
@ Thoughts_My_Aim: If you're like to debate whether the game is collaborative or not, feel free to start a new thread with your assertions and I guarantee you people will join in to discuss the matter. Perhaps this isn't the best thread for continuing this particular discussion.
DemoMonkey wrote:
"There is a difference between stories emerging and setting out to craft the story directly."
Emerikol
I consider "playing the game and stories are created as part of emergent gameplay" to fall within the definition of "collaborative storytelling". I stand by my earlier remarks.
I think the debate is becoming about semantics rather than actual play style or philosophy.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Isn't it "filthy narrativist storytelling" vs "rigid simulationist gaming", Bawylie?
It's important to insult both sets of extremist equally. That's inclusive!
bawylie wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
We need an oath of some sort.
"I solemnly swear that while promoting a style of play or method of DM'ing, I shall not state, or by omission imply, that any other style of play or method of DM'ing or its practitioners are in any way inferior.
Equally, while reading the posts of others, I shall not interperet statements of personal preference relating to style of play or method of DM'ing as implying attacks on other preferences, unless such statements are explicity stated to be facts rather than opinions."
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Recent history would seem to indicate that's not enough.
C'mon Bawylie. Take the oath with me. Let's lead by example!
DemoMonkey wrote:
bawylie wrote:
"One group is totally inclusive. They say that they prefer their style but that to each his own. The other side repeatedly attacks the first group and advocates their playstyle be labeled as wrong..."
I agree with this statement and yet think the groups are reversed.
We are often blind to the excesses of our own tribe.
Whatever though. Debate, discuss, learn. It's all good.
I'm just not interested in replacing the edition war with a Playstyle war. It's the edition peace now. Beat your swords (hehe) into plowshares already.
I've removed content from this thread. Harassment/bullying is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Yeah. I mean, I've never played in/run a game like iserith's/FoxFace's.
Nor have I had a game quite like Emerikol's.
But I'm sure all their players are happy. I'm sure they're happy.
Which is what matters.
Discussing, learning, and expanding are great.
The more tools the better.
But in the end, "Do you, boo-boo." as it were.
If all our games were the same, it would be miraculously boring.
Sorry for the previous rant.
I just generally respect most of you and it's been driving me bonkers watching this go from a lit match to a brush fire.
"Changing their stars every minute or two. They kept paying money.
They kept running through until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
Whether this one was that one or that one was this one. Or which one
Was what one or what one was who.
Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
The Fix-It-Up Chappie packed up. And he went.
And he laughed as he drove In his car up the beach,
“They never will learn. No. You can’t Teach a Sneetch!”
But McBean was quite wrong. I’m quite happy to say.
That the Sneetches got really quite smart on that day.
The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches.
And no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches.
That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether
They had one, or not, upon thars."
~'The Sneetches', by Dr Seuss~
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ummm...How did a discussion on the merits of Power Word Kill devolve into arguements about collaborative gaming?
Huntsman57 wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Meteor Swarm allows a dex save (and thus evasion, had by monks, rangers, rogues or via item or anyone with a shield via a feat), is subject to Legendary Resistance, does typed damage (bludgeoning gets halved by Barbarian resistance, Fire by tieflings and appropriate Dragonborn / Sorcerers and Protection from Energy, plus fire is traditionally a common monster resistance type), and fills such a large area it is impractical in any kind of restricted area without Sculpt Spell.
Power Word Kill affects the target you want and can be countered only by Death Ward (and things that counter magic/spells in general, all of which would apply equally to meteor swarm).
Dark_Stryke wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Tell my wife I said... hello.
danyc wrote:
So do you people tell the wizard which creatures will be affected by a sleep spell before it is cast?
arnwolf666 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
iserith wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Personally, on a personal level that involves just me. I don't want to know the hit points of most enemies, especially the BBEG. Sweating out the tough battle not sure if you are going to pull it off or die an inglorious death creates that level of tension I enjoy. As soon as I know he has 30 HP left...well then for the most part that tension is gone. It can still exist, for certain, as I experienced something akin to it when I used to do the big WoW raids.
So when I run tables, I generally will describe when a creature is beginning to look winded and showing signs of injury or pain, but I would not give out a numerical value.