Do you assume that the DM wouldn't (shouldn't) put anything in front of you that you would need to run from, so the fact that it is here means that it is something you have a fair chance of beating in combat.
I'm asking because I was reading a different thread and was reminded that, in ages past, running from fights was a viable (and even common) tactic and I realized that I, as a DM, have been tending not to put things that would require fleeing into my 4E games (whereas I often did when DMing BD&D, which I played during the 3E years instead of 3E).
I guess I had been DMing the two games differently subconsciously. And I think my players have caught on to the different ways I DM them because in 4E they never choose to run but in BD&D they often chose to run away.
I notice that when playing BD&D if things start to look bad in a fight they run away right away, but in 4E, even if things start to look bad they will "have faith that it will work out" and choose to stay.
Are there ever times in your games when it is necessary to run away? I'm just curious.
In the former, fleeing is outright common. We do not expect the DM to make level appropriate encounters, and we will avoid combat if possible, and always test our enemies first while avoiding engaging them if combat is necessary. If we find they are too difficult to beat, we do assume that the DM will allow us another way out of the situation if we can come up with something that is interesting enough.
In the latter, we assume we will win if we play the tactics right. Encounters tend to be level-appropriate, rather than all over the map. If we have serious problems, we may even restart the encounter like a video game, as we assume we must have made an egregious error somewhere at the start of the fight, like positioning our wizard so he gets overwhelmed too easily.
In the first game, we expect the DM to play monsters as appropriate for their in-game stats – e.g. less intelligent monsters will do less intelligent things, monsters have goals of their own and may flee or just want to get by us, or be looking for an easy meal and be distracted by simply throwing some jerky in their faces. In the second game, once combat starts the DM uses every monster in the most efficient and effective manner, as if they are psychically linked and have access to all the knowledge the DM does about our stats and whatnot. Roleplaying our characters occurs only outside of combat.
I enjoy both styles immensely.
I have been flip-flopping between BD&D and 4E, but lately I've been on more of a 4E kick. I think the best of both worlds would be for me to just start DMing 4E combat the way I tend to DM BD&D combat (i.e. more "dangerously" and less "forgone conclusion").
First and foremost: the DM.
Secondly: the edition. (Less inclined to run in 4.0.)
throwing in a random high level encounters is bad DMing. "sorry the sickly-looking kobold was actually sorceror 10+ levels above you!" should never happen without some sort of warning unless they have been slaughtering kobold communities left and right and eating "Innocent Cordon Bleu Baby Kobold a l'Orange" every night.
telling the PCs "here there be ancient dragons" and they just tromp in there, well hopefully they brought ketchup, cause as rumor has it, they are crunchy taste good with said condiment.
difficult encounters that the party can win is good DMing. if they die due to bad rolls & no strategy (while being too stubborn to run), then they deserve it, but throwing a monster 4-5 CRs/Levels above the party with no possible escape route? no. just no
I am the DM about 99% of the time. And I warn my players in minute one of session one that this assumption will get them killed. Some time over the first 3 levels, they get faced with an opportunity to test me.
- I have had a small dragon fly overhead during overland travel, giving evidence that it has seen "something" in their direction and swooping around.
- I have had a gang of high level ruffians mug the party at second level, bloodying multiple members of the party before the players surrender and give up the small sack of gold.
- I have offered adventure hooks at early levels that a reasonably aware *player* would know is way over their head... for now.
- For the dragon, I'll roll and let the member of the party with Nature notice that there is a copse of trees that might be suitable for hiding.
- For the ruffians, I let the person with streetwise recognize one of the ruffians as a well-known and reasonably-feared long-time criminal.
- For the adventure hooks, I tend to just let them run with it on their own. Why would a 3rd level party chase after a beholder?
Even without the defenders, they should have been able to make it but the dice disagreed. So once the big bad got the archer and the wizard backed into a corner they should have realized that it was time to run. Hopefully they'll be smarter tonight. 8o)
If I throw an encounter at my party they can be reasonably assured that it is meant to die, though I can't promise it'll be easy. On the other hand if they go looking for a fight they'll find that my set NPCs don't conform to appropriate level challenges. Some are level 1 minions, and others are level 36 solos. Choose your targets wisely.
PC: "Alright, enough pussyfooting in town, i'm going to go mess up those goblins we saw on the way here"
DM: "alright"
PC: "first i go to the washroom and get ready, gotta look good when leaving to to be a hero"
DM: "k. as you enter the washroom you see... *roll* Orcus reading the paper on the john. he is furious as the Grayhawk Grays just lost the cup. Orcus is now out several dozen astral diamond. he's looking for something about you-sized to vent his frustration on. oh look, you happen to be you-sized. roll initiative"
PC:
If, say, a player creates a character who is either too cocky, too dumb, or too righteous to run away, and the DM throws something at them that is too powerful.. all the DM is doing is killing that character. You could blame the player, but they are only playing the character properly (running away might be OOC). Thus it is a bonehead DM move.
Either the DM should establish, at character generation, the possibility of unwinnable battles, or they should just run with what tailors to the characters created. ...Or, y'know, some combination of that.
What I don't think he expected was us to immediately begin plotting how to kill the giant even in the midst of running away, and constantly wanting to return (in the middle of other things later on) and hunt him down.
...for no real reason other than the fact that he was there and we had to run the first time.
I don't think he's done anything like that anymore, since we kind of went off track mid-campaign to slaughter this pointless side trek. ("Hey, with this thing we just found, we can probably go back (several dozen miles) and kill that bloody giant.")
If, say, a player creates a character who is either too cocky, too dumb, or too righteous to run away, and the DM throws something at them that is too powerful.. all the DM is doing is killing that character. You could blame the player, but they are only playing the character properly (running away might be OOC). Thus it is a bonehead DM move.
Well, it also depends on the player's expectations. I personally wouldn't create a character who was likely to get himself killed unless I was comfortable getting him killed.
However, in both of my games we offer free resurrection at the next town. We consider not being able to play for the rest of the evening sufficient punishment for getting yourself killed.
-10% of fights should be cakewalks.
-60% of fights should be winnable in a straight-up fight.
-20% of fights should be winnable much more easily if the players take advantage of the particular quirks of the area they're fighting in or otherwise use nonstandard tactics.
-10% of fights should be just hard enough that the players don't quite die.
My encounter design goal is never to kill a PC or to put them in a situation where they have to run away, because PCs are idiots and almost never run unless it's stupidly clear that they'll be slaughtered, and sometimes not even then. They're the Big Damn Heroes, they expect to win their fights, and rightfully so. Tough opponents should be tough, but the players should have to actually go out and seek something they can't handle in order to find themselves fighting it.
the DM should establish, at character generation, the possibility of unwinnable battles.
Minute one of session one.
While my guys are terriffic roleplayers and I sure don't want to punish them, I think I will have to tweak things a bit to keep them, during their time in the pyramid, constantly worried for their lives. These guys (except for one) never played 2e, and I'd like to put the idea of retreat firmly in their minds. Yes, in 2e retreat was always an option, and I had to make sure I had monsters that would try to cut off any paths of escape.
The barbarian knows not the meaning of the word retreat, and so if that DM were to throw anything at us that we couldn't kill without at least some form of warning, either in game or out, then its a Death Sentence for the barbarian since he'll fight to the bitter end, even if he's incapable of landing a punch.
The wizard, however, is much squishier. If the meatshields can't hold it, then he's not gonna stick around to see if just one more scorching ray will drop the darn thing. That said, defeat is a bitter thing and pride easily wounded; it's a good way to get me to spend the rest of the campaign dropping gold to track and avenge myself on the perpetrator.
In general, its good to at least provide some way for the PC's to know a fight's unwinnable before they start it, either through knowledge checks or through example (hmm, that lizard thing just ate those Paladins that were 5 levels above us. Perhaps there's another way around...)
So no XP or treasure, which isn't the most rewarding thing to spend a few hours on.
Also is one of the reasons seeking revenge is practically guaranteed.
Really, the problem with running away is that you lost the encounter.
So no XP or treasure, which isn't the most rewarding thing to spend a few hours on.
Also is one of the reasons seeking revenge is practically guaranteed.
True; Its gamer mentality that if you did not win, then you lost, the same way a non-optimal char build is considered a bad build.
In my experience, DMs who feel the need to punish and squeesh their players aren't doing it for the sake of the story, they're more often doing it for the sake of the system. They give the players little tastes ans glimpses of what they can do when they get that next level, only to have that opportunity be replaced by a desire to level again.
I DM heroes. Sometimes the heroes fail, but that's no one's fault but their own. There's no status quo, no low totum poll; there's the heroes' decisions and abilities dertemining the fate of their lives, the lives of innocents, and the conflict at hand.
I prefer for the players to determine in character what they'd like to do. If they only fight the monsters they know they can defeat, they're not heroes, they're cowards. I don't want to give my players a game in which they must play cowards. That's why I give my players opportunities to get into tough fights, with a chance of either victory or defeat. I run a hard game, one in which characters are knocked unconscious and even die. The players know they can kill that dragon, but they also know some of them might die.
Really, the problem with running away is that you lost the encounter.
So no XP or treasure, which isn't the most rewarding thing to spend a few hours on.
Also is one of the reasons seeking revenge is practically guaranteed.
Which is one of the reasons I despise XP. I recognize the need for XP for a cohesive system, but it works better for us if the DM just says at a convenient time, usually just before a bathroom/snack break, "You all level up now."
Which is one of the reasons I despise XP. I recognize the need for XP for a cohesive system, but it works better for us if the DM just says at a convenient time, usually just before a bathroom/snack break, "You all level up now."
Also known as "you level up when I damn well please, because I'm the DM! I know everything about the game! I'm the boss of your character! If you're not nice to me we won't level up until next week! Get me a soda from the fridge! I'm an asshat! I've been playing longer than you have! My wife is unnatractive!" Method.
It is so much more satisfying to have the XP. To earn the XP. To take the XP.
True; Its gamer mentality that if you did not win, then you lost
This is explicitly true in the system though - if you didn't beat the encounter, you got nothing while expending resources.
This is easily countered by the DM issuing a "hey, you survived the challenge" award.
This is explicitly true in the system though - if you didn't beat the encounter, you got nothing while expending resources.
This is easily countered by the DM issuing a "hey, you survived the challenge" award.
As in "you experienced what it's like to fight a dragon! You'll never make that mistake again."
XP is to stand for a lesson learned, not power forcefully taken. This isn't Highlander! (Oh, but if it were *whistfully dreams*)
I don't think either fights you have no chance of winning or fights you have no chance of losing are particularly interesting.
When I get into a fight, I generally assume that it is a fight that I can win if things go my way. However, I also assume that it is also possible for me to lose any given fight.
I don't think either fights you have no chance of winning or fights you have no chance of losing are particularly interesting.
I agree entirely.
Also known as "you level up when I damn well please, because I'm the DM! I know everything about the game! I'm the boss of your character! If you're not nice to me we won't level up until next week! Get me a soda from the fridge! I'm an asshat! I've been playing longer than you have! My wife is unnatractive!" Method.
It is so much more satisfying to have the XP. To earn the XP. To take the XP.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The DM decides how much XP you get, anyway, so we're basically just cutting out the middleman.
This way you don't have characters of different levels leveling up at different times. You don't have level-ups occurring randomly throughout the story. You don't have to worry about how long it will be until your next level-up. You don't have to think about what the best method for gaining XP is. The DM doesn't have to worry about making sure you get sufficient XP for resolving a problem without violence so that you aren't drawing your swords at every turn. You don't get envious players because the DM awarded 300 XP for one person's RP and 200 for another's. It's just cleaner.
Using the existing system, you don't level up when you feel it's appropriate for your character anyway, so that doesn't change. Might as well let the DM level you up when he feels you've hit an appropriate milestone in the story, and he's already started planning encounters for the next level.
Really, the problem with running away is that you lost the encounter.
Not true. Avoiding a guaranteed TPK is a victory.
I would give full xp for avoiding the unwinnable encounter entirely.
I would give partial xp for cutting the losses and running.
That's absolutely ridiculous. The DM decides how much XP you get, anyway, so we're basically just cutting out the middleman.
This way you don't have characters of different levels leveling up at different times. You don't have level-ups occurring randomly throughout the story. You don't have to worry about how long it will be until your next level-up. You don't have to think about what the best method for gaining XP is. The DM doesn't have to worry about making sure you get sufficient XP for resolving a problem without violence so that you aren't drawing your swords at every turn. You don't get envious players because the DM awarded 300 XP for one person's RP and 200 for another's. It's just cleaner.
Using the existing system, you don't level up when you feel it's appropriate for your character anyway, so that doesn't change. Might as well let the DM level you up when he feels you've hit an appropriate milestone in the story, and he's already started planning encounters for the next level.
This is a difference in style. My style, being better than yours, allows me to say the following; :P
I prefer to reward XP, becuase it feels like you've earned it. DMs who don't give XP generally aren't concerned about the solid down to earth level of the game that I like to descend too. They're more up in the air...which is fine for most people, but not for me.
Also known as "you level up when I damn well please, because I'm the DM! I know everything about the game! I'm the boss of your character! If you're not nice to me we won't level up until next week! Get me a soda from the fridge! I'm an asshat! I've been playing longer than you have! My wife is unnatractive!" Method.
Or, perhaps, less dickishly phrased:
"The party will level up when I-the-DM decide to level the party up. I know the difficulty level of the next three adventure opportunities I have prepared. I want to ensure that the party is appropriately challenged by the adventures I put time into creating. If that means three adventure arcs at the same level, so be it. If it means leveling after only one adventure arc, so be it. While you're headed to the fridge, could you bring me a soda, please? I'm fabulous. My wife is hot."
Or, perhaps, less dickishly phrased:
"The party will level up when I-the-DM decide to level the party up. I know the difficulty level of the next three adventure opportunities I have prepared. I want to ensure that the party is appropriately challenged by the adventures I put time into creating. If that means three adventure arcs at the same level, so be it. If it means leveling after only one adventure arc, so be it. While you're headed to the fridge, could you bring me a soda, please? I'm fabulous. My wife is hot."
It could go either way.
Still, I'm afraid if I don't assign XP the more socially forward people in my group will think I'm using the "this is my game, and you're nothing by props!" Method.
As in "you experienced what it's like to fight a dragon! You'll never make that mistake again."
XP is to stand for a lesson learned, not power forcefully taken. This isn't Highlander! (Oh, but if it were *whistfully dreams*)
Indeeds!
If you only got XP for winning an encounter, than by that logic, you would get the most XP from being hit by a trap and living (and not from avoiding it.) As well, surviving is a successful encounter, tho XP probably dependant on how difficult it was to escape.
XP is a decent system tool, but it's all so arbitrary at tabletop. The DM decides everything anyways, so why have the extra math? My one side group has a DM that spends 10 minutes adding up arbitrary numbers so that we can add them to our arbitrary total, arbitrary decimal places included. Meanwhile my main group has a DM who says "Who cares!? You all went up half a level!" --and then throws money and chocolate into the air, and its all good times.
There's nothing wrong with liking numbers, whatever floats your boat. The purpose just bewilders me a bit.
My encounter design goal is never to kill a PC or to put them in a situation where they have to run away, because PCs are idiots and almost never run unless it's stupidly clear that they'll be slaughtered, and sometimes not even then. They're the Big Damn Heroes, they expect to win their fights, and rightfully so. Tough opponents should be tough, but the players should have to actually go out and seek something they can't handle in order to find themselves fighting it.
At the beginning of a combat, the PCs should win. That may change over the course of the combat, however.
Also, there are NPCs who won't go out of their way to fight the PCs, but if the PCs decide to attack said NPC, or do something very stupid around them, they might fight them. However, these NPCs are never intended to be fought at the current player level, or oftentimes at all, and so if they do decide to go attack the court wizard, well, that's their own fault. That said, the court wizard will never attack THEM preemtively; it has to be the PCs who do something to start it.
These guys are basically there for story reasons, and are however strong the story demands them to be. I haven't had anyone attack one in probably a decade, though, so I don't think its really an issue. These guys are not presented as foes, but rather as people.
I might add that monsters are almost invariably faster than PCs, so running isn't even always an option.
Just because the Pcs are supposed to win doesn't mean that every combat is a cakewalk, though. I've come close to a TPK once already this campaign, and characters have been near death on several occaisions.
"The party will level up when I-the-DM decide to level the party up. I know the difficulty level of the next three adventure opportunities I have prepared. I want to ensure that the party is appropriately challenged by the adventures I put time into creating. If that means three adventure arcs at the same level, so be it. If it means leveling after only one adventure arc, so be it. While you're headed to the fridge, could you bring me a soda, please? I'm fabulous. My wife is hot."
As a general rule, the party levels every other session in my campaign, but it can be more often. Once it was three sessions, but one of them was cut short with only one encounter left in the adventure to go.
I'll actually level the party early sometimes just to make sure they feel like they're moving forward.
XP is basically arbitrary on some level anyway.
This is a difference in style. My style, being better than yours, allows me to say the following; :P
I prefer to reward XP, becuase it feels like you've earned it. DMs who don't give XP generally aren't concerned about the solid down to earth level of the game that I like to descend too. They're more up in the air...which is fine for most people, but not for me.
I don't even know what that means. How is XP "down to earth?"
I like this method because I don't like thinking about monsters as sacks of XP just waiting to be raided. Both of your caricatures are completely at odds with my DM's actual approach to the game, and I feel like not having to worry about XP frees me to play my character however I see fit, without having to worry that I would have been strong enough to fight that fire demon if only I hadn't snuck around that horde of zombies a week ago.
If you think that XP = monsters killed, then the two methods are basically interchangeable. If you're awarding XP for noncombat encounters, roleplaying, solving puzzles, or anything except killing something, then you're already giving arbitrary XP, so why not just take the extra step?
Regardless of how it "feels" to you, leveling is always something you've earned. In our games, you earn it by surviving this far into the story. In your games, you earn it by killing wandering sacks of XP. Either way, it's an incredibly rough, highly abstract measurement of character growth
I don't even know what that means. How is XP "down to earth?"
I like this method because I don't like thinking about monsters as sacks of XP just waiting to be raided. Both of your caricatures are completely at odds with my DM's actual approach to the game, and I feel like not having to worry about XP frees me to play my character however I see fit, without having to worry that I would have been strong enough to fight that fire demon if only I hadn't snuck around that horde of zombies a week ago.
If you think that XP = monsters killed, then the two methods are basically interchangeable. If you're awarding XP for noncombat encounters, roleplaying, solving puzzles, or anything except killing something, then you're already giving arbitrary XP, so why not just take the extra step?
Regardless of how it "feels" to you, leveling is always something you've earned. In our games, you earn it by surviving this far into the story. In your games, you earn it by killing wandering sacks of XP. Either way, it's an incredibly rough, highly abstract measurement of character growth
Im of the opinion that pcs should always survive. DMS should never kill player characters. I hate losing a character that I have spent a while roleplaying. For the DM to kill that character off sucks horribly. To me the pcs should win every fight they encounter. Though they shouldnt necessarly know that.
Im of the opinion that pcs should always survive. DMS should never kill player characters. I hate losing a character that I have spent a while roleplaying. For the DM to kill that character off sucks horribly. To me the pcs should win every fight they encounter. Though they shouldnt necessarly know that.
This is why the DM has to customize his campaign to match his players. Because I would be really bored in a campaign where I was always going to win... it eliminates the rewards of min/maxing, of strategic thinking, etc...
Which is fine. honestly, I don't mean to suggest your way is wrong or anything, because in a system of 'the PCs most certainly will die unless they have min/maxed and used strategies effectively' you eliminate the rewards of 'jack of all trades' and 'linguist'.
the campaign I'm about to DM, I'm going to be houseruling (sort of) some things to incorporate religion and skills more frequently. I mean, just small things... like if you're in a city that has a temple worshiping your god and you go and pray there, you'll regain a healing surge or something like that.
Anyway, I know you don't want to hear the specifics of how I'm handling it.. my point is just that... it's silly to try to figure out the best way to do it, I think what we should really be discussing is the best way to determine what our players want.
Talking to them? what if they disagree ? If there's a roleplayer and a metagamer in the same group, how to appease both of them ?
Im of the opinion that pcs should always survive. DMS should never kill player characters. I hate losing a character that I have spent a while roleplaying. For the DM to kill that character off sucks horribly. To me the pcs should win every fight they encounter. Though they shouldnt necessarly know that.
Everyone agrees that it is better for the game if the PCs survive.
It's just a matter of sometimes they survive a particular situation because they had the sense to run away.
If the DM is keeping the badassness of a creature secret until the PCs are already in over their heads then it sucks. What I'm talking about is giving them ample hints about the gravity of the situation and every opportunity to get out of there but letting them choose whether they do or not.
These kinds of encounters are never meant to be fought. They're meant to be run from, avoided, hidden from, talked out of, etc. And that's the point.
Im of the opinion that pcs should always survive. DMS should never kill player characters. I hate losing a character that I have spent a while roleplaying. For the DM to kill that character off sucks horribly. To me the pcs should win every fight they encounter. Though they shouldnt necessarly know that.
I think I would get bored that way.
Although like I said, we give free resurrection, so the worst thing that can happen to you is you sit and eat pizza and drink beer for a couple of hours while the rest of us play. Sometimes the DM will even give you a couple of minions to play, which is something like playing a 3e wizard with a crossbow and 9 INT.
Obviously there are a lot of ways to approach player death. I don't think there is a wrong way, but everybody should be on the same page from the start of the game. You don't want this to happen:
Everyone agrees that it is better for the game if the PCs survive.
It's just a matter of sometimes they survive a particular situation because they had the sense to run away.
If the DM is keeping the badassness of a creature secret until the PCs are already in over their heads then it sucks. What I'm talking about is giving them ample hints about the gravity of the situation and every opportunity to get out of there but letting them choose whether they do or not.
These kinds of encounters are never meant to be fought. They're meant to be run from, avoided, hidden from, talked out of, etc. And that's the point.
Sorry, I sort of derailed the thread a bit. Yeah, in my experience we generally assume we can handle the fight (but assume if we don't do well, we can in fact die) but we certainly don't have the idea in our heads of 'is this fight too much for us to handle?'
I think it's a fun idea to have encounters designed to have people run away. Perception checks, obvious descriptions, or better yet... an NPC quest giver LETS THEM KNOW, but they have to go anyway to accomplish something (like in The Hobbit when he was trapped in the mountain with Smog)
But it does seem a bit dangerous to let the first 'hit' and it deals their bloodied value in damage to let them know to run away. It seems like it might be too late at that point.
It is something I absolutely hate. If there's no risk of failure, then you haven't accomplished anything when you succeed.
If I'm playing in some random game, and I notice that PCs never seem to die, I will go out of my damn way to try to commit character suicide. When it becomes obvious that we're playing "safe" D&D, I'll find another game. It's happened a couple times.
It is something I absolutely hate. If there's no risk of failure, then you haven't accomplished anything when you succeed.
Indeed. I feel like if you can't die, you're not really playing a game, and you might as well pack up your dice and play Exquisite Corpse, which can be just as fun as DnD.
Indeed. I feel like if you can't die, you're not really playing a game, and you might as well pack up your dice and play Exquisite Corpse, which can be just as fun as DnD.
Well I like the illusion of death without actually dying. That said when it does happen the same character should be able to come back. In my previous group we role played this out. With the character completing some quest or other in the world of the dead, or making a deal of somekind.
If it stops mattering what I do, then I might as well not do anything.
If I might as well not do anything, there's no reason to play.
Therefore, I'll go read a book, watch TV, whatever.
It depends on the players to me.
My usual group always plays classically heroic moral super-people. They will happily march to their doom no matter the odds. Making them run away is virtually impossible, and no fun for them since it apparently emasculates their hero fantasy. Losing of course doesn't feel good either... so I just can't add surrender or flight as a tactical element.
So yes, overall I think including too powerful things in the game world is a good thing. However, it can lead to unfun results if the DM isn't careful. One of the big issues with fantasy settings is that appearances frequently don't equate to power levels. So overpowered encounters that the PC's will not realize are too strong for them should be avoided. If the pc's decide to attack the massive sleeping dragon, then they probably deserve what's coming for them. But if the PC's decide to attack a random six legged lizard thing that just happens to be able to turn them to stone at a glance because it's a basilisk, then that's kinda lame.
The trick is to slowly «train» them into good habits ! Recently I «coup de grace» two NPCs that travelled with the group. That really freaked out the players. After a heated discussion they finally came to their senses. Bad guys can pull hard punches also. «Fleeing and regrouping» to «fight another day» is now a viable option. Mwahahahaha !
Yes.
Should the party assume that every encounter is winnable?
No. Sometimes you need to run, sometimes it's just plain smarter to avoid a fight.
Possibly Pointless Encounter
Some time ago, my DM had our party (AD&D; two Fighters, a Ranger, a Cleric (me), a Magic-User, and an Illusionist) come across a battlefield with human and elven corpses. It was not immediately clear who was on which side, so we continued on, hoping to find some elven survivors (we'd come from another elven village). Instead, we found eight men in battered armor, some wounded, all with bloodied weapons - and with the same gear as some of the bodies we'd seen. The Magic-User and I stepped back and made no threatening movements, but the Illusionist and the two Fighters opened up, assuming the men had attacked the elves. The Ranger ducked into the woods, apparently to ambush the men, with the Illusionist helping. Well, one of the guys tossed a Fireball from a Necklace into the forest, another used a Lightning Bolt from a Wand to cook the Illusionist, and the other six formed up against the Fighters, who checked their movement. As it happened, the elves had been ambushed by a different group, and the two groups of human corpses we'd found had been from mercenary companies trying to hack each other to pieces and weren't interested in the elves. As a final twist to the encounter, however, the Fireball and LB had been their last magical capabilities, and all were below half HP - we could have taken them!
Experience is not given out every time the rogue ganks a peasant, so we avoid those scenarios entirely.
In general, because of this system, the party is encouraged to fight smarter, not harder. Yes, the DM has been extremely lenient with them- I'm the only vet DnD player in the group, but even I was several years out of shape when I joined- but they're learning.
I think, as a DM and a player, that you should never engender a situation where the player group feels that they can just win. I'm not saying necessarily that the fights will be a cakewalk, but if the players can see a fight coming and go "Yeah, we'll win" then they tend not to really evolve as players, let alone as PCs. They'll suffer through the mundanity of it, but because they know there's no chance of them losing, the campaign will suffer for it.
Now the best way to deal with that mindset is to put encounters that are out of their range in as optional events. Of these, some should still be within their possibility to win if they fight smart. But others should be situations where, yes, they have one or two ways out. Surrender and not die, or retreat and not die. Or try to retreat only to discover that they're trapped and surrender.
Now, I'll admit that this often feels like a DM railroading. And sometimes DMs will do just that for story purposes, or because the players are stretching the campaign on and on and on, and the DM wants to get that part of it over with.
But the key thing is that it isn't railroading- not really. The players don't have to make the choice to surrender- they can fight to the death, maybe even cause series damage to the enemy party, but run the significant risk of most if not all of them dying.
It feels like railroading. It isn't. And the reason it isn't is because it forces the players to make a difficult choice. I mean, they're the heroes, they're riding through the campaign expecting to be able to win every single fight they encounter, and now they're locked in a room with three skeleton mages and a half dragon vampire. The options are surrender... or die.
Now, the DM might (as mine did) decide to bring them down to zero and then knock them out, but not have them die- but that was with a mostly new group who took the stupid choice.
Sometimes you just have to kill them, I'm afraid. It's not because you're gunning for them, or malicious or anything, but because as players they need to be able to adapt to the game. And if they're treating every encounter as winnable, then they're falling into a rut, and when you spring the BBEG on them later on, it might just result in an incredibly disatisfying TPK.
And that's bad for the party all around- better they learn now, then later.
Generally, in my experience, even with barbarians who have eight intelligence and know no fear, they're still the heroes. They're not NPCs who can just wildly rage away until they die, they have to make difficult choices. A barbarian might rail at being dragged away from combat, but he is not required to stay in it. Even with, say, three intelligence (a dog, for instance) can go "Woof woof, crap, there's hundreds of enemies, even though I need to protect my territory, I'm getting the hell out of here for now, woof woof woof."
That's not fear. That's instinct- and if your barb insists that he has to stay because he knows no fear, hit him over the head with the DMG.
Generally, if the PC's are interacting with a situation I, as DM, have intentionally placed there as an encounter or obstacle for them to overcome as part of an adventure or campaign then I will craft said encounter with their skills and levels in mind and the majority will fall within the parameters of what they are able to handle.
That said, the PCs' adventures occur within a larger world that exists beyond their scope and control. If they decide to go traipsing off and have a shot at Prince Grugnor, Demon Lord of the Fathomless Depths, then they are going to have their asses handed to them.
Many of the threats and perils in the world are far more difficult than the PCs are able to handle at certain levels and I, as DM, do not scale them back simply cos the PCs want to have a go.
Likewise, I do not scale up the difficulty of low-level threats. A piddling group of half-starved kobolds who are stealing chickens from local farmsteads will not suddenly become a band of 20th level firebreathing berserker kobolds just cos a high-level party decides to clear them out.
Essentially, there are two types of encounters/obstacles in the game: narrative and contextual.
Narrative threats are crafted by the DM specifically as part of the storyline and gameplay experience with the difficulty set appropriately by the DM to provide a challenge for his players.
Contextual threats are outlined by the DM broadly as part of the setting and overall experience with the difficulty set appropriately by the place and niche they occupy in the game world.
They where just starting out and I had explained to them that they during this module not every challenge was ment to be a combat. I had also explained to them that sometimes sneaking around was their best option.
At the very beginning they were all turned to Orcs and ask to infultrate this orc strong hold. On the way there they came across a large group of Orcs, 30 or so I think. I was honest with them when they asked about the orcs and how strong they looked. The party talked about walking up and talking with the Orcs (remember they had been turned into orcs themselves) which is what they were suppose to do. Everything was going according to plan....
Then out of no where they decided to attack them instead. They assumed that the majority of them would be minions and that the encounter would be level appropriate. Not just that but they walked up to this group of Orcs and started attacking the leader at range. Boy where they upset when they started dropping like flys after being surrounded. It lead to a big discussion on how much the DM should railroad the party and stear them away from making a bad desision. My argument was that I wasn't willing to paint a big red stop sight over the head of the things they should not fight... Some felt that every encounter should be made level appropriate and were made that is wasn't.
It was a very interesting experience. In the end, I allowed them to jump back in time and go the other route.
If there's the slightest indication that no matter what I do, the party will win/survive/succeed, then it stops mattering what I do.
If it stops mattering what I do, then I might as well not do anything.
If I might as well not do anything, there's no reason to play.
Therefore, I'll go read a book, watch TV, whatever.
This is interesting, for me the point of playing is to create a good story and hang out with my friends. It isn't winning combats. For me the DMs job isn't to try and kill the PCs, its to provide interesting challenges and encounters for the PCs to deal with as they move through the story.
I suppose that if you take that as the general point of it all, then having every encounter be level appropriate is not a bad thing but just lends to the story of how these characters came to being super awsome lvl 30 heros.
This is interesting, for me the point of playing is to create a good story and hang out with my friends. It isn't winning combats. For me the DMs job isn't to try and kill the PCs, its to provide interesting challenges and encounters for the PCs to deal with as they move through the story.
I suppose that if you take that as the general point of it all, then having every encounter be level appropriate is not a bad thing but just lends to the story of how these characters came to being super awsome lvl 30 heros.
I think you might have misunderstood Kaldric's point a bit.
I don't think "winning combats" is his focus either. Everyone agrees that having fun and making a good story is the point, but I think he's saying that he feels that having everything be a level-appropriate challenge isn't fun for him and doesn't make what he would call a good story.
That's my take on his point anyway.
This is interesting, for me the point of playing is to create a good story and hang out with my friends. It isn't winning combats. For me the DMs job isn't to try and kill the PCs, its to provide interesting challenges and encounters for the PCs to deal with as they move through the story.
I suppose that if you take that as the general point of it all, then having every encounter be level appropriate is not a bad thing but just lends to the story of how these characters came to being super awsome lvl 30 heros.
Bolded for emphasis. You both agree that the game should be interesting. What Kaldric said is that if it becomes apparent that, no matter what he does, he will succeed, he's going to stop playing, because it's no longer interesting. He wants the possibility of defeat to be there, rather than the easy victory.
I try to do this by making some difficult encounters throughout the campaign. In 4th Edition this means making an encounter such that a few characters might die, perhaps even have a TPK, but not make it so that it is impossible to win. If my players suddenly got the urge to go fight an Ancient Red Dragon, well so be it. I'll do it, they'll die, and we'll start something new. At that point it's obvious that whatever I created isn't doing it for them. But if the players are enjoying the story, background, and setting there's no reason for me to throw something they have no chance to defeat in their way.
It's a difficult thing to balance. In a recent game a group of Orcs and Goblins almost downed the party since I overtuned the encounter. That was supposed to be a difficult fight (being the only one during that day), but not so hard that I had to fudge my tactics (and I did have to do that) in order for the party to survive. At least now the fear of death is in them. Hopefully that'll be enough until it's time to test their skill again.
If the DM's going to use something which is a genuine run-away moment, you need to signal it. Have the old guy in the local tavern say, "Yeah, that cave is full of goblins and whatnot - some tough buggers down there, but I'm sure you fellas can take 'em - but I tell you something, you meet a Tarrasque down there, you better run, boy! That thing ain't no joke!"
Of course, no matter how well a DM signals that a monster isn't a combat encounter, some players will just take that as a challenge. For some DMs, the solution is to have the players just die, so they'll know better next time. Some groups love that kind of thing. Myself, I think it's undramatic and frankly a little mean. If your players just don't take the hint, then give them a way to kill the monster after all, but just not with combat. Maybe they can collapse the tunnel, or lure it over the cliff, or get it to chase them into the nest of another monster, or somesuch. So you can make it clear that the players totally weren't up to going toe to toe with the monster, but give them the satisfaction of a win anyway.
Of course, he was saying this in anger just after his character had died.
The guy doesn't play with us anymore, but I once had a player say, with a completely serious face, that "any encounter in which a PC dies is a poorly designed encounter."
Of course, he was saying this in anger just after his character had died.
You say that for laughs, but that guy was right, with the following qualification.
"Any encounter in which a PC, not deliberately playing poorly, dies in a manner which is not dramatically appropriate is a poorly designed encounter."
Any random guy off the street can roll dice and deduct hit points. You're the DM, it's your job to be telling a story, and in stories people die for a reason. Even where people die randomly, it's because the story is about the randomness of life, and I'm betting that you don't routinely start games by letting your players know it's going to be a game about how bad things can happen to good people and there's nothing you can do about it. (Try that, though. It can be a good game.)
Disclaimer: unless, of course, you're playing a combat crawl with no story, in which case players should absolutely die regularly as that's part of the fun.
You say that for laughs, but that guy was right, with the following qualification.
"Any encounter in which a PC, not deliberately playing poorly, dies in a manner which is not dramatically appropriate is a poorly designed encounter."
Any random guy off the street can roll dice and deduct hit points. You're the DM, it's your job to be telling a story, and in stories people die for a reason. Even where people die randomly, it's because the story is about the randomness of life, and I'm betting that you don't routinely start games by letting your players know it's going to be a game about how bad things can happen to good people and there's nothing you can do about it. (Try that, though. It can be a good game.)
Disclaimer: unless, of course, you're playing a combat crawl with no story, in which case players should absolutely die regularly as that's part of the fun.
My point was that he was one of the "death should never be a possiblity" types.
My point was that he was one of the "death should never be a possiblity" types.
Well, it shouldn't be. If players aren't going to enjoy having their characters killed, then don't kill them. (That's an if.) Rather than have their success or failure measured by their hit points, have it measured by whether they caught the fleeing villain, saved the peasant before the wolves tore him apart, defeated the enemies in time to escape the burning building, stopped the wizard before he completed the dire ritual. Have a rival who's always talking about how he killed his orcs better and faster.
Very few stories ever written base the success or failure of the protagonist solely on whether he survived; there's no reason that story-driven D&D should be any different.
D&D is a fantasy. It's not a job, or a chore, or a trial. Nothing should ever happen to the players that they don't enjoy. Even when bad stuff happens to their characters, it should still be awesome. If they lose a hand, it's an opportunity to replace it with a bad-ass metal claw. If their family gets killed, it's so that they can totally go to town on the final villain. There is no reason that any part of the game should not be fun.
Once again: combat crawls are a different story, and nothing I say here applies to them.
Very few stories ever written base the success or failure of the protagonist solely on whether he survived; there's no reason that story-driven D&D should be any different.
RPGs are a very different medium from novels, movies, etc. They don't necessarily need to follow the same rules.
One of the reasons I like RPGs is because they are so different from other kinds of media.
In a novel, you know that the main character isn't going to die at the beginning because novels have an obligation to be a certain length. But an RPG story has no obligation to be a particular length. They can end at any time. I like that chaotic aspect to them.
In a movie, they have time constraints so there are limits to what they can spend time on. In an RPG, you have less time constraints so you have the leeway to spend time on things that a movie wouldn't be able to. I like that at-our-own-pace, in-our-own-time aspect of RPGs.
In novels and movies, etc., the main characters have a plot immunity, meaning certain kinds of bad things can't happen to them. In an RPG, they don't . I like that you-aren't-immune-to-bad-things-"just-because" aspect of RPGs.
I don't want to make D&D more like other types of media.
RPGs are a very different medium from novels, movies, etc. They don't necessarily need to follow the same rules.
I suspect we're not going to reach agreement, so probably enough to say that if you and your group are having fun then that's all that matters. I give you the high-five of RPG brotherhood and look forward to hearing more of your opinions in future threads.
But for the point of discussion, story is media neutral. A story is a story is a story. It has three acts, being an introduction, a complication, and a climax. It has protagonists, who undergo personal journeys and sometimes also literal journeys, where they are called to adventures in the first act and make sacrifices in the second act and overcome adversity in the third act entirely as a result of the experiences they've had, the changes they've undergone, and the allies they've recruited over the course of their journey.
How you tell the story changes. You can't directly adapt a novel to film, or to a videogame, or to a roleplaying game. Things work differently in different media. But story structure remains unchanged. That's universal. Everything that works, in any media, ever, works because it is a well structured story.
You can apply it right down to individual combats. You set up the battle map and it's the first act; it's the call to adventure (in this case battle) and the way the parties answer that call tells you about their arc over the course of the battle. Do they hang back and aim for range, do they rush in, do they block choke points, do they call out a challenge? Then combat is joined, and it's the second act, and players are losing hit points and they're getting mobbed and none of the enemy have gone down yet and it looks dire. But then it's the third act and the minions get cleared away, and there's just the big monsters left on the table - and this is your chance to be a DM instead of a glorified rules adjudicator.
You can just watch your players tick off the last few hit points, or you can make your combat a story, by having the conclusion be the result of what's happened so far. Have the enemy run, so that the player who hung back can catch him. Have the enemy offer flanking to the character who got flattened at the start and clawed back from death's door with a natural 20, so they can land the killing blow. Have the enemy move to the edge of a ledge "to get range", so that the character that the enemy's been mocking all battle can bull-rush the SOB over the edge.
Anyway. All I'm saying is, story's universal, you don't get to walk away from it just by saying you're in a different medium.
My encounter design goal is never to kill a PC or to put them in a situation where they have to run away, because PCs are idiots and almost never run unless it's stupidly clear that they'll be slaughtered, and sometimes not even then. They're the Big Damn Heroes, they expect to win their fights, and rightfully so. Tough opponents should be tough, but the players should have to actually go out and seek something they can't handle in order to find themselves fighting it.
Bingo! The party are the stars of the show. The whole campaign is about them, not the DM's ego. "How dare the players think their characters are all that! I'll show them. If they don't run away from this encounter, the TPK is their own fault for being so haughty! Bwahahaha!"
That said, that doesn't mean there can't be bad guys who are very much higher level than the party. What it does mean is that when said bad guy makes his appearance, there's not supposed to be a combat. If that big bad dragon makes a landing next to the party, he's in a talking mood for some reason. A player would truly have to be absolutely stupid to go Leeroy Jenkins at it, and even then the DM could show some restraint and just have the dragon pin him to the ground or something. Do it by DM fiat to get the point across. If the player keeps it up with other such encounters, you have a metagame problem of the player honestly not understanding what's going on in which case you should teach him, or he's a jerk.
Also, this doesn't mean a party should never retreat. Since dice rolls are random, the bad luck factor will come into play from time to time. Players should know/learn to retreat when a particular combat is just not going their way. Suffering a defeat but coming back later to kick ass is part of being a hero as well. It'll make that victory sweeter.
Purposely design a combat the party is meant to retreat or die to feel humiliated and humbled against the almighty DM? Ptooey on such Il Duces!
Its true that 4E makes the players think they don't have to back down. I've seen a change in my players since the switch.
False, actually. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the edition. It has a lot more to do with presentation, I think.
Also, previous editions were much more poorly designed, so random monsters might kill PCs for no reason other than lucky rolling. But... not quite the same thing.
But for the point of discussion, story is media neutral. A story is a story is a story. It has three acts, being an introduction, a complication, and a climax. It has protagonists, who undergo personal journeys and sometimes also literal journeys, where they are called to adventures in the first act and make sacrifices in the second act and overcome adversity in the third act entirely as a result of the experiences they've had, the changes they've undergone, and the allies they've recruited over the course of their journey.
Wrong, actually. Anyone who says this has never tried to turn a book into a movie, or vice-versa. Or seen a book turned into a movie, or a video game, or whatever.
There are actually enormous differences. A movie is only 1d3 hours long. A TV series may be 24 or 26 episodes long (a season), it might be a five episode miniseries (five hours), it might be 65 episodes long (typical disney cartoon length; see Gargoyles, for instance), or it might last pretty much forever (soap operas). The kind of story you can tell in a TV show and the kind of story you can tell in a movie aren't the same at all. A TV show has much longer to deal with its plot, which means that it can do different sorts of plot and can have much more delayed payoff and a much bigger cast, among other things.
Graphic novels again allow for different stories to be told, and for them to be told in different ways. Just watch the Watchmen movie and the graphic novel - the graphic novel is amazing, the movie is mediocre, precisely because they thought they could just turn the graphic novel into a movie. That doesn't always work, and Watchmen's format had a lot to do with it.
The sort of medium you tell your story in has a very different impact on what sort of story you can tell.
The story you described is a subset of the hero's journey, but there are stories other than the hero's journey! People think that it is ALL stories, but it really isn't. Indeed, many movies break with it. Heck, they don't even have to be in that order, necessarily.
But look at something like American Beauty. It looks like the typical hero's journey, then the main character is shot in the head at the end of the movie. Subversion of the typical story. That's the end, too. He doesn't overcome adversity; he dies.
You don't always have the call to adventure. You don't always have the sacrifices. You don't always have them overcome adversity.
Stories are not all the same. People sometimes claim they are, but they're universally wrong. They simply haven't actually looked at stories in enough depth.
Indeed. I feel like if you can't die, you're not really playing a game, and you might as well pack up your dice and play Exquisite Corpse, which can be just as fun as DnD.
There is a difference between having a combat where party members can be killed and a combat where the whole point is to show the party they are not the big man on campus because the DM loves his campaign world. If the players can't feel like they're playing bad-ass heroes, they might as well pack up their dice and play Risk to get a world conquest fix. (Someone will go for the Australian Plan.)
If there's the slightest indication that no matter what I do, the party will win/survive/succeed, then it stops mattering what I do.
If it stops mattering what I do, then I might as well not do anything.
If I might as well not do anything, there's no reason to play.
Therefore, I'll go read a book, watch TV, whatever.
If there's the slightest indication that no matter what I do, the party will lose/die/fail, then it stops mattering what I do.
etc. etc. etc.
Wrong, actually. Anyone who says this has never tried to turn a book into a movie, or vice-versa. Or seen a book turned into a movie, or a video game, or whatever.
I'm not saying a particular story is media neutral. I'm saying story is media neutral - the concept and structure of a tale well told.
It's fairly easy to settle; if you think I'm wrong, feel free to cite any successful story that doesn't have a three-act structure featuring protagonists who undergo character arcs with a beginning, middle and end.
At this point I believe it's customary to refer people to Joseph Campbell's work; that's kind of done to death but it's still good advice. Failing that, just watch some good television or movies.
EDIT: OOPS! I committed the cardinal sin of not reading your entire post. My apologies; you cite American Beauty. It's a bad example, though. Kevin Spacey totally has the hero's journey. He's called to adventure - he's given the opportunity to explore a world outside what he knows - he's offered the chance to break free from what he sees as the restrictions of his family and society. His fantasies about his daughter's friend represent this yearning to move past the limits of society. The middle part of the film documents his exploration of this - he tries drugs, he gets fit, he has increasingly bitter fights with his wife and children. And at the conclusion, as a result of his experience, he transcends his previous condition by understanding that people are just people. He goes to have sex with his daughter's friend and realises she's not a fantasy, she's just a young girl, she's just a person like his wife and his children and they're all caught the same between what they want the world to be and what it actually is. He ends up being shot, as a consequence of his actions up to that point, but it's okay, because he's transcended - the conclusion of the hero's journey - and he dies happy.
I run my games like a sandbox. The party hears about the dragon or evil megacorporation. If they take it on too early, it's a TPK.
Likewise, there are some areas where it's a lone goblin with a dagger, or street tough with a switchblade. Easy for a party to take on if they wish.
I'm not a big fan of 13 encounters till the next level, etc. I wirte what fits according to my vision of how the campaign operates.
Anything that is save or die is well advertised, as Traps galore, bring three thieves...or the evil wizard is reputed to have the power of death in his finger...
Parties that take those risks, risk it all, come what may.
A good thread here. Lots of varying responses.
If there's the slightest indication that no matter what I do, the party will lose/die/fail, then it stops mattering what I do.
etc. etc. etc.
What? If your character goes to tie his shoes, your DM doesn't make you roll. Are you upset that it's predetermined that your character will succeed in tying his shoes? Of course you aren't. Because failing would be silly.
I'll repeat that. Failing would be silly.
Sometimes screwing up isn't dramatic, it isn't a consequence, it isn't a realistic danger. Sometimes it's just silly and as a DM you have to be alert to that and not let it happen.
Success against the odds, through the direct result of your own actions.
Success as a certainty, as long as you show up and don't do anything particularly stupid.
I know which one I prefer.
---------------------------
The argument that "Players don't like it when their characters die, therefore, characters should never die" is specious.
Players don't like lots of things. Missing with their attacks, for instance. Yet we expect that they will, no matter what they do, occasionally miss with their attacks. If they never miss with their attacks, the game is boring.
Obviously, players dislike dying more than missing. So, you reduce the odds of dying. You do NOT make it impossible to do. Or even make it so that it only happens through willful or stupid decision-making. Because if you do that, once again, a player is secure in the knowledge that they just have to show up, don't do anything particularly stupid, and they're in no danger.
Success as a certainty, as long as you show up and don't do anything particularly stupid.
Well, you're assuming that the sum total of interaction in the game happens on the battlemap in the form of making attacks. And if that's true for your game, then definitely, never fudge the dice, never shift the challenge.
I can't even remember whether it's in this thread or the one in the DM forum, but I've spoken before about success being more than swords hitting internal organs. If you're talking about stories, the real success for characters is about about their character development, about their ability to keep getting up when they get knocked down, about the essential triumph of the human spirit over adversity. If you could just walk up to the Big Bad and put a sword through him, there would be no journey. Reaching the end of your adventure is as much about becoming someone who deserves to win as it is becoming someone capable of winning. And once you deserve to win, it's monumentally awful to nevertheless fail just because the enemy happens to roll two crits in a row.
That might be real life, but Real Life: The Roleplaying Game (TM) comes in a different book, which doesn't sell as well, and what we have here is heroic fantasy, which is another beast entirely.
Knowledge of the outcome tends to spoil the tension.
Character doesn't develop, and there is no adversity, if you know that you're going to win.
Yes, it sucks to lose when you really deserved to win. But if you're guaranteed to win after meeting a quota of character development, you might as well stop there. Because after that, there's no tension, and any "Boss Fight" would simply be anticlimactic.
Edit: I'm not in any way saying that players should just be randomly killed on a regular basis, out of the blue. That destroys tension just as easily as never allowing them to die. They need to know that they succeed or fail based entirely on their own actions - and occasionally, one of those actions could be trying to beat an encounter by running away, using diplomacy, whatever.
If you are guaranteed to win, it's not very dramatic. It's really that simple.
Knowledge of the outcome tends to spoil the tension.
Bollocks to that! (Friendly bollocks, I think we don't have that many points of difference any more, but still - bollocks!)
Let's take Star Wars again. Do we have any doubt that Luke is going to win? Any doubt? No, of course we don't. We know he's going to win. He's the protagonist.
It's still tense. And why is it tense? Well, primarily because drama is distinct from plot; they're not actually related whatsoever. Check out a David Lynch film for a cinematic example. But more importantly (and accessibly), it's because we don't know what it will cost Luke. We don't know whether he'll be able to retain his innocence, live up to his potential as a Jedi, and save his friends. He loses Obi-Wan (who, as a mentor character, would have been an NPC in a well-run game, not a PC); will he also lose Artoo? Will Han and Chewie let their hearts of gold triumph over their mercenary nature and return to save the day - or will Luke have to go it alone, bearing the weight entirely on his young shoulders?
The ending is very rarely the exciting bit. What's important is how you get there. If your players are loving the fight against the final boss, it's not just because he's the final boss - it's because they're reminding him how they took out all his underbosses, it's because they're wielding that kick-ass magic weapon they found when they beat his lieutenant, it's because they're using the new skills that they earned from levelling up on the way to get to him that they didn't have when they first set out. Of course they're going to beat the bad guy - what's cool is how they did it.
But that doesn't mean that you can just show up and roll dice until the enemy's dead and you've got the loot- because games like that aren't very fun. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd be watching a movie. Given that I've got the capacity to interact, I bloody well want those interactions to matter- for better or worse.
"Any encounter in which a player dies is poorly designed."
No. Any non-avoidable encounter in which a player dies NOT to bad luck/poor rolls, that is a bad encounter.
But unless your DM is out to get you, you're not going to see many of those. Will encounters have the possibility of being TPKs? Sure. But that's reliant on the players.
I've been playing DnD for a long time, and in my time playing it I've come across a few vital lessons- the first of which is one that I've had significant trouble teaching newbies on- mainly because they refuse to believe it until they've had a "If I weren't the DM, your character would be dead right now" moment. I'm not talking about a last minute save or anything, I'm talking about losing body parts, losing equipment, and having the world take a crap on you.
What lesson is that?
NEVER assume that your enemies are stupid. Don't assume that just because they're NPCs they're cardboard cutouts with no real capability for goal accomplishment.
When players assume the enemies are stupid, they tend to put themselves in situations where a DM gets exasperated, because hey, he could let them die and learn, but derail the campaign. Or he could save them, thus reinforcing their attitude of 'nothing can touch us'
In either case something bad happens- the DM of my current group has finally resorted to limb loss for one of our characters in order to teach them that lesson.
DnD is a communal experience- but it sure as hell isn't the express domain of the DM to make sure everything goes like flowers and daisies. If the players are being stupid, then they're being stupid and it's their own fault for walking into these situations. Rather then expecting more and more out of the DM in order to keep them around, try, just for a moment, to expect more out of the players.
The game is a two way street. And both players and DMs do tend to forget this on occasion. But when they don't, the experience is tremendously enjoyable.
And that's why I play, myself. You might play for the generic hack and slash- I don't really know. But I'd rather have a game in which I can make a difference, then one that would continue on if you stuck a cardboard cutout named Ralph in my place without any difference.
Do you tend to assume that, if you are encountering a particular creature, then that means that you would be able to beat it in a straight-up fight?
Do you assume that the DM wouldn't (shouldn't) put anything in front of you that you would need to run from, so the fact that it is here means that it is something you have a fair chance of beating in combat.
If the answer to the following is Yes:
*Are we on a battlemat? If it has a mini, it's probably hostile, and thus walking XP. We don't attack random NPCs or go chasing Ancient Red Dragons, partly because the DM throws enough stuff at us to kill already, and partly because there's no RAW that says the DM can't suddenly decide that Bob the Peasant is a 21st level Archmage who could kill us all with a thought.
*Has the DM said "Roll initiative"? If a combat encounter is unwinnable, the DM shouldn't force it on the players (unless they stupidly asked for it), especially since higher-level monsters will have higher initiative. "Roll initiative" means that the monsters will attack us, and we should return the favor, at least on our first turn.
If the answer to the following is No:
*Will it talk? Anything nonsentient is likely a fight-to-the-death affair. If a PC makes an attempt to talk to a sentient creature and it refuses, that's our cue to break out the dice.
*Can we run? I'm not just talking about escape routes and monster speed. If the in-story consequences of us running are as bad as (or worse than) the in-story consequences of us dying, we may as well slug it out now.
*Has the DM indicated to us that we can't win? Either out of game ("He's 10th level, you're level 1") or in-game (a recurring villain popping in randomly to gloat at us). We don't feel the need to kill everything in sight...not before leveling up some, at least.
...then we will probably fight it, and assume we can beat it. Eventually. (Our average KO rate is 2/6 PCs.)
I'm asking because I was reading a different thread and was reminded that, in ages past, running from fights was a viable (and even common) tactic and I realized that I, as a DM, have been tending not to put things that would require fleeing into my 4E games (whereas I often did when DMing BD&D, which I played during the 3E years instead of 3E).
I guess I had been DMing the two games differently subconsciously. And I think my players have caught on to the different ways I DM them because in 4E they never choose to run but in BD&D they often chose to run away.
I notice that when playing BD&D if things start to look bad in a fight they run away right away, but in 4E, even if things start to look bad they will "have faith that it will work out" and choose to stay.
It is true in 4e that the HP-to-damage ratio is larger. A wizard starts with what, 4 hp in 3e, but 13+ in 4e. Fighters, even more. The risk of being one-shotted by everything from a housecat on up is a great incentive to pick your fights carefully.
I also notice that larger groups may contribute to more party confidence in a fight. A group of 7 fighting a Solo looks stronger than a group of 5 fighting that Solo, even if the monster was scaled up to compensate. Choosing to run for the nearest exit also means there's that many more players to coordinate.
As to why players don't simply cut their losses and run in the middle of a losing fight...the above, gamer mentality, and basic human psychology. If the party is only losing because of a streak of low rolls, they'll expect to roll high next time, or have the DM nerf the monster's tactics to compensate. If they have to take an extended rest right after running, they'll feel the encounter was a waste of time. And while it's not very fun to lose a character, heroic-feeling players may very well chose to risk an epic TPK. There's also the "we're all in this together" mentality that draws many to D&D in the first place, and keeps the party members fighting even after one or two have died.
As an aside, I'm of the opinion that DMs shouldn't award exp for running away, if the cause was bad tactics (or even bad luck) in a survivable fight. However, they shouldn't waste the players' time with railroaded Hopeless Boss Fights either. If the PCs have to be wiped out or mugged by clearly superior foes as part of the story, either finish them in 1-2 rounds, or just describe the whole thing in narrative and skip combat altogether.
Are there ever times in your games when it is necessary to run away? I'm just curious.
To wrap up this wall of text, I'll use an example of the only encounter we've run from so far:
Setup: The PCs have survived an encounter with giant bats and camp for the night. When they wake up, they are surrounded by zombies and a lich.
Metagame: I recall what I know about lich necromancers and think, we're dead. Never even mind the zombies.
Battlemat: Yes, but mostly to establish that we are surrounded.
Initiative: Nope.
Talking: The lich starts off the "encounter" by politely inviting us to leave, and the cleric (the most talkative player, incidentally) is only too happy to oblige. When the cleric backs out of a fight with undead, naturally the rest of the party falls in line.
Running: The zombies conveniently shuffle aside to clear a path for the party.
DM cues: The DM had previously introduced said lich as a slightly bemused observer at the party's defeat of his "minions" (the bats). Flashing neon lights of "Recurring BBEG!" go off.
Result: The DM stares in silence for a few moments before revealing that he had expected some (idiot) party member to charge the nearest zombie. Turns out they were minions. (No one had bothered to use the Religion skill, though I doubt it would have changed our decision if we did.)
Moral of the story: You can't predict what your players will do.
As another aside: I've seen a bit of discussion in this thread as to whether PCs should ever die, what should happen to PCs whose stupid tactics nearly get them killed, etc. What do you think of a player whose entire strategy involves rushing into combat on the assumption that his PC will be KOd (nearly KOd, if the monsters roll low) so that the other PCs can take down the monsters unbothered, and he'll just heal up in the short rest after the encounter? Does this cheapen death?
Bollocks to that! (Friendly bollocks, I think we don't have that many points of difference any more, but still - bollocks!)
[snip]
Let's take Star Wars again. Do we have any doubt that Luke is going to win? Any doubt? No, of course we don't. We know he's going to win. He's the protagonist.
Actually, no, you do have a doubt that he's going to win, the very first time you encounter the film, assuming it hasn't been spoiled for you. There's a reason they call it spoiled. That doubt may be infinitesimally small, but it is NOT zero. It is also constantly reinforced by the film itself. It shows you people failing to blow it up right as Luke is about to try, reinforcing, subconsciously, the idea that failure is possible.
Imagine if you will: Luke is in the X-Wing hangar. Biggs comes up:
Biggs: Hey, Luke. I hear you're a dead cert to blow up the Death Star.
Luke: Yup.
Biggs: Have fun. I'm going to go take a nap.
It's fine to have a strong expectation of victory. Self-Confidence, knowledge that hey, you're the heroes, whatever. Massively strong expectation does not equal infinite certainty. And nothing matches the FIRST time you watch Star Wars, in large part because you're not entirely certain he's going to win. It's exciting. Sure, the "how they do it" is tons of fun, makes the movies re-watchable. But they're never as good as watching it the first time, when you're not entirely sure what's going to happen. Maybe there's going to be a sequel, starring Han getting revenge for the death of Luke and the vaporization of Yavin IV.
Imagine it's 1977: Your buddy says you have to come see this movie. You go in. It's awesome, Obi-Wan dies, Han leaves, they're attacking the death star, the X-Wing pilots are dying like flies, the missile shoots out!!!! It impacts on the surface. Your buddy turns to you and says "Don't worry, Luke nails it first time."
And then you kill him. The dirty bastard.
[as an aside] If you go by the "He's the protagonist, of course he's going to win", then you need to explain him getting mutilated and dropped down an elevator shaft in the second film. What happens if the second film tanks, they yank the funding for the third. Protagonist loses. And after all... you didn't know that the first film WOULDN'T have a sequel, so there was every bit as much chance that it would end on a down note as ESB.
All the Star Wars stuff is beside the point, anyway. Because they're stories, not games. It's part of why it's kind of difficult to play a Star Wars game focusing directly on the events of A New Hope. Because you KNOW how it ends.
In general, no.
I'm a vetern of Basic & Advanced D&D, I'm used to challenges, steep odds, & instances where my sword just won't be enough.
The 3.x games I've played in have been swingy. Either the DM slavishly followed the CR formulas & I found I had little to fear, or they've run things very similar to what I'm used to from my Basic - AD&D days.
I much prefer the latter style.
And the 3.5 game I'm in right now is definitly this latter style.
In the 4e game I'm currently playing in? I'd like to be challenged. But so far it's all been by-the-book. And I've yet to come across anything I regard as a threat. Not even the "hard" encounters.
And don't even get me started about how I despise minions..... You know what, either just give us the free xp or throw real monsters at us. Don't waste time with minions.
To his credit the DM isn't fudging dice rolls. The problem is (for my group)that the 4e rules just aren't challenging us. Wich is leading us to play in an ever more cartoon like way.
Do you assume that the DM wouldn't (shouldn't) put anything in front of you that you would need to run from, so the fact that it is here means that it is something you have a fair chance of beating in combat.
In general, no.
In fact I fully expect there to be things encounted that aren't "fair" fights. Afterall, it's just silly to assume that the world & its inhabitants auto-scales to my lv. & I only ever meet ecounters within a certain bandwidth.
All I expect is that there's some way to deal with each encounter - even if that includes retreat.
Sadly, in our 4e game, it is the norm to see things we're expected to blow through. Lv apropriate? Yes. Even "hard" according to the chart? Yes.
A challenge? No, just time consuming.
Are there ever times in your games when it is necessary to run away?
3.x & earlier, yes.
4e? Not yet.
Imagine it's 1977: Your buddy says you have to come see this movie. You go in. It's awesome, Obi-Wan dies, Han leaves, they're attacking the death star, the X-Wing pilots are dying like flies, the missile shoots out!!!! It impacts on the surface. Your buddy turns to you and says "Don't worry, Luke nails it first time."
And then you kill him. The dirty bastard.
Well, two things. First, he's not just telling you Luke wins, he's telling you how he wins, which is part of the mystery. Secondly, he's not actually telling you something you didn't know about whether Luke wins, he's breaking your suspension of disbelief, your sense of immersion. You betcha Luke wins. The story's not told as one which has a potentially tragic ending; there is nothing in the movie to suggest anything other than eventual victory for the forces of good. Leia tells you it right in her very first appearance on the Corellian Corvette. ("The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems slip through your fingers...") But we hold our breath anyway because we let ourselves be drawn into the story.
Your point about Empire Strikes Back: well, if there had been no Return of the Jedi, yes, that would have been a terrible way to end the film. Lucas took a gamble, and it paid off. He treated ESB as not a self contained story, but as the second act of a trilogy, and like all second acts it ends with the characters at their lowest possible point, with Luke missing a hand, Vader ascendant, and Han imprisoned in carbonite. The payoff is in the third movie where (redundant drumroll) Luke wins, because he's the frikkin' hero, and that's what they do.
But he does it at a cost. It costs him his hand, it costs him Obi-Wan, it costs him Yoda; Han gets stuck in carbonite, Chewie and Leia get enslaved, huge numbers of rebels and ewoks get killed, and - most significantly - Vader dies, despite redeeming himself. And we didn't know any of that stuff was going to happen. (Well, Vader kind of had to die, but other than that.) None of those costs, had this been an RPG, are ones which would have come as a result of combat encounters. Except maybe the ewoks.
For an example of how second act movies don't work if you don't have the payoff, check out Matrix Reloaded, which stakes its climax on a big conclusion in Revolutions, which Revolutions fails to deliver. Neo simply doesn't make enough well-characterised allies or learn enough audience-relatable lessons to provide an appropriate conclusion to the hero's journey, and the movie falls flat.
If it's remotely possible that your hero might fail, you have to set it up in the first act. It's Chekov's gun; what your'e firing in act three, you're loading in act one. (See Edgar Wright or Alfred Hitchcock for examples.) The hero fails in Fallen because they told you he was going to in the very first line of the movie - you just didn't know it at the time. If the fallibility of man or the inevitability of evil isn't one of your opening themes, it simply can't be one of your closing ones.
EDIT: For further examples of my first point, is the Death Star Trench Run any less tense for having seen the DVD of Empire Strikes Back on a store shelf, which has Luke on the frikkin' cover? Are the Harry Potter movies any less good than they would otherwise be simply because you know there's another movie and it still has Harry's name in the title?
And for the discussion on character death: there are times when a PC should die (and this is coming from a player, not a DM). In a recent 3.5 game, my character stupidly decided to see how much whiskey he could drink in one sitting. After he passed out, the party decided to strap him to his horse and head on to the dungeon anyway. My character was the only one with a decent Spot check. Notice the Epic fails in decision making that were made?
The DM rolled a random encounter, and we found ourselves ambushed by a decently sneaky monster. My character died before he could wake up, and the rest of the party was ready to run when someone complained. So the DM essentially undid the whole encounter. It felt really cheap to me. I, the player, was stupid, and I, the character, was stupid, and we, the party, were stupid. My character should have died. End of story. The rest of the night, the game sucked because the DM wouldn't throw any challenges at us because then we might die.
But the worst part was that we had determined that "winning" or "losing" was based on whether our characters survived, rather than on whether we had a good time or not. I don't care if my character dies, so long as I have fun playing the game.
The hero fails in Fallen
See... I was going to watch that one of these days. Now I'm not.
See... I was going to watch that one of these days. Now I'm not.
Sorry dude. 10 year rule. Once it's been out for 10 years, you've missed your window to complain about spoilers. Still well worth watching the film, though.
But watching a movie isn't playing a game, either. I can fully expect to win at D&D. But if I know I CAN'T LOSE (which isn't the same as expecting to win), it's no longer a fun game. Someone watching it or reading a description of it might be enjoying the story, but that is irrelevant. I'm not enjoying playing out the foregone conclusion. I'm just bored. Because D&D is not, for me, focused on creating stories. It's about playing a game, the ancillary effect of which can be the creation of a story.
If the story exists before the game, I'll go read the story. Faster, doesn't get interrupted by combat, pizza deliveries, whatever. Truth is, it'll probably suck. There's a reason I don't read the D&D fiction. It's just... ugh. Then, I'll come back and create a story, either tragedy or comedy or epic, *who knows? It's not being written by traditional rules* by actually playing it. I won't judge that story by whether it exemplifies artistic unity, or whatever. Because it's not a story that's being written, it's being played.
Because D&D is not, for me, focused on creating stories. It's about playing a game, the ancillary effect of which can be the creation of a story.
Oh, okay. Fundamental philosophical difference. In that case, none of what I've said is relevant. Enjoy the game!
Gotta say though, three act structure isn't "traditional rules". It's a fundamental law of art, much like the Golden Ratio or the Rule of Thirds. This is what works for us, as humans, because of the way our brains are wired. You can no more write a story that doesn't follow the three-act structure* than you can build a machine that doesn't worry about that "pesky cause and effect thing". If your story doesn't have an arc, and protagonists, and an introduction, complication and climax, and a conclusion which comes as a result of what has gone before, then it's not a story, it's a history.
* Sorry, it's techincally possible to imply a first or third act without actually including it in the story; it's still there, it's just taking place in the audience's imagination. Short stories do this often. It's usually that you don't need to tell the specifics of the act because the story has such tightness in the other two acts that the contents of the missing act are (at least thematically) obvious.
Either way, if I know the outcome before I start, it reduces my desire to start. Generally to nil.
I can enjoy plays, such as Shakespeare, for their qualities beyond simple narrative, even when I know how they end.
I cannot enjoy games when there is no chance that I can lose.
So, evolving my own ideas here through discourse:
Maybe I'm not so concerned with knowing how the story will end (although that certainly bothers me in many, many cases). That's a corollary to the more important factor of being bored with a rigged game.
Maybe I'm not so concerned with knowing how the story will end (although that certainly bothers me in many, many cases). That's a corollary to the more important factor of being bored with a rigged game.
Yes. The game you're playing is, "Can my character survive combat against these enemies?" and if the answer is predetermined, "Yes," then there's not much left to play. I get that (now) and respect it.
The game me and my players are playing is, "Can my character become the hero the realm needs?" (or similar), where the answer to that equation is more than just slaying the monsters and defeating the villain, it's speaking to the manner in which the task is approached. It's asking the player not merely to act in a tactically sound manner and roll dice in a reasonably lucky fashion, it's also asking players to have a certain flair for drama, to rise to a certain standard of roleplaying, to have an amount of talent for supporting the plot arcs of others, and it's the result of all of those skills that determines whether the players eventually "win".
Most players have had games where they technically completed the adventure but afterwards feel unsatisfied. That's what I'm talking about. Those players lost. And that's the kind of losing that can happen in any game, and you're saying that for you it happens when the dice get fudged and monsters get nerfed, because that's what the challenge is in your game, which is a fair call. And I'm saying preternaturally lucky enemy attacks and disproportionately tough random encounters get in the way of the real challenge in my game, which is something beyond the battlemap.
Agreement reached! Everyone level up! :D
Also, if I were playing in your game, and understood that the goal was to become the hero the realm needs, and noticed that no matter what choices I made, you were gonna make darn sure that happened, I'd see if I could derail it, just change the focus a bit. If I couldn't, if my actual actions had no tangible effect on the game, I'd just quit. Roleplaying games aren't just about combat. Even when you're not in combat, you're still playing a game. And if success is a foregone conclusion, it still destroys any sense of achievement.
It's part of my gaming philosophy: the heroes are supposed to win, and the bad guys are supposed to lose.* I'm a big fan of happy endings.
*This is why I don't run or play in evil games, because that obligates me to lose.
One group's must-have is another group's deal-breaker.
It's what makes the world interesting. I wouldn't have it any other way. :D
Foreshadowing: About 5 sessions into the campaign, the PCs stumbled upon a battle in a swamp, 10 kobolds vs. a halfling caravan down to 1 fighter. As the PCs arrive, the fighter goes facedown in the swamp, still alive but drowning. In my mind, the point of the encounter was clear- save the halfling, moving through the kobolds and keeping him from death. Much to my surprise, they ignored the dying guy (despite occasional hints from the DM; "the halfling has stopped flailing so much") and wiped out the kobolds to the last man, pursuing those who fled. When they were done, I ruled that the halfling had died, and my adventure changed from "prodigal sun returns" to "only heir has died".
In the climax of my DMing (we're switching off to give me a few months break) the PCs are exploring a fortress to rescue slaves held within. They know something is unusual when they find the room with slaughtered orc and ogre guards, but press on. They fight the bad guys and win, freeing the slaves. Then... the evil Kuo-Toa raiders show up, dragging a mage on a leash and loaded with minions. They're after the slaves for their breeding program. At this point, the heroes are very low on healing surges, but have held back they're daily powers (they knew I wouldn't be ending the adventure three hours before our normal time, so kept holding out). The K-Ts engage and are well past the heroes level (K-Ts are level 9 minions, level 12 leader, mage is level 11, while heroes are level 6). I thought the choice was clear- fight a desperate holding action, find a way out for the slaves. After all, they're here to rescue the slaves, right?
Wrong. They let a neverending stream of minions come to them, hacking them down while more flood into the room every round. The wizard has a few bad rolls on daily and encounters, the paladin runs out of surges and can no longer heal folks, the ranger is hitting minions but only two at a time, the defender is in his element but can't help the others because there's just too many minions. All the slaves wait for leadership, but the heroes are focused on beating the bad guys. Eventually, with some judicious DM hints, the heroes fall back, leaving the defender to hold the door (after he's cut off his finger for them to take with them for eventual Raise Dead).
Players wind up frustrated because they couldn't win (and often couldn't hit), DM is frustrated because what looked like a dynamic battle in planning became a mindless meat-grinder. The heroes get major XP for saving the slaves, more than they would have gotten for beating the whole mob. The fighter loses his +2 armor, 2 magic swords, magic shield, money, etc.
Moral of the story: if you want to have an encounter that revolves around something other than whacking villains, the players should be made very clear on that at the start, and the DM should include a mechanism in the game to remind them of that. Even when losing a fight, the characters should be able to affect the villains often enough so they don't feel useless. Conversely, if they can hit the minions fairly easily, they should be clear that the minions are numerous enough to beat them anyway. Finally, the point of the encounter should be so clear that the heroes get it the whole time, rather than getting bogged down with all kinds of extraneous combat.
Learn from my mistakes, DMs.
Learn from my mistakes, DMs.
I think you had a lot of cool ideas.
The only mistake you made was in not realizing that your players were more the "must-fight-everything-we-see" type.
It sucks for you because, with they way they like to play, it somewhat limits the kinds of situations you can use as a DM.
There seems to be a gap between your style and theirs.
Let's take Star Wars again. Do we have any doubt that Luke is going to win? Any doubt? No, of course we don't. We know he's going to win. He's the protagonist.
Fiction and games are very different: the outcome of a piece of fiction is predetermined by the author as fits the needs of the story he wishes to tell; the outcome of a game is determined jointly by all participants through the course of play and influenced by many uncontrolled variables and random chance.
...The only mistake you made was in not realizing that your players were more the "must-fight-everything-we-see" type.
Not really true, but I can see why it appears that way. I lacked a lot of prep time so I leaned on the published adventures. I DM'd KeepotS, my own one-night adventure, then Thunderspire with my own twists and a little more of my own style at the end. The problem was that the two WotC adventures are pretty linear- go to point A, kill what you find there, go to point B, repeat as necessary. When I put in my own stuff, the players were already used to the fights from the modules and reacted accordingly- fight to the death and loot the bodies. To steal from Dilbert, I shifted paradigms without a clutch and they weren't ready for it. But the players are all good roleplayers and open to new ideas, but the ideas need to be couched so that the differences between these fights and the 15 before them are different in conception, so require different execution.
Long story short, neither the players or the DM had a clear enough picture of the situation to adjust out of their idea of how things would go. Next time, I'll figure out a better lead into an unusual situation.
Heh. Still, the point stands. If I wanted to watch it a little bit before, I don't want to watch it at all now. I just felt my desire to "play" that movie drop to zero, when you gave away the ending. Same thing happens in D&D.
But watching a movie isn't playing a game, either. I can fully expect to win at D&D. But if I know I CAN'T LOSE (which isn't the same as expecting to win), it's no longer a fun game. Someone watching it or reading a description of it might be enjoying the story, but that is irrelevant. I'm not enjoying playing out the foregone conclusion. I'm just bored. Because D&D is not, for me, focused on creating stories. It's about playing a game, the ancillary effect of which can be the creation of a story.
If the story exists before the game, I'll go read the story. Faster, doesn't get interrupted by combat, pizza deliveries, whatever. Truth is, it'll probably suck. There's a reason I don't read the D&D fiction. It's just... ugh. Then, I'll come back and create a story, either tragedy or comedy or epic, *who knows? It's not being written by traditional rules* by actually playing it. I won't judge that story by whether it exemplifies artistic unity, or whatever. Because it's not a story that's being written, it's being played.
Losing doesn't have to be your character is killed. Failing the mission can be that risk of loss. The goblins overrun the village. The dragon eats the princess. Orcus is summoned. The lich makes the metropolis a necropolis.
Next step is the party dealing with the aftermath and trying to fix things to have the Good Guys win. The village is retaken. The dragon is slain. Princess is still gone but betrothed prince of foreign country declares peace anyway because his nation also feared the dragon. Orcus is slain. The lich is destroyed, the necroplis is cleansed, the souls are put to rest, the land becomes hallowed.
I suspect we're not going to reach agreement, so probably enough to say that if you and your group are having fun then that's all that matters. I give you the high-five of RPG brotherhood and look forward to hearing more of your opinions in future threads.
But for the point of discussion, story is media neutral. A story is a story is a story. It has three acts, being an introduction, a complication, and a climax. It has protagonists, who undergo personal journeys and sometimes also literal journeys, where they are called to adventures in the first act and make sacrifices in the second act and overcome adversity in the third act entirely as a result of the experiences they've had, the changes they've undergone, and the allies they've recruited over the course of their journey.
How you tell the story changes. You can't directly adapt a novel to film, or to a videogame, or to a roleplaying game. Things work differently in different media. But story structure remains unchanged. That's universal. Everything that works, in any media, ever, works because it is a well structured story.
You can apply it right down to individual combats. You set up the battle map and it's the first act; it's the call to adventure (in this case battle) and the way the parties answer that call tells you about their arc over the course of the battle. Do they hang back and aim for range, do they rush in, do they block choke points, do they call out a challenge? Then combat is joined, and it's the second act, and players are losing hit points and they're getting mobbed and none of the enemy have gone down yet and it looks dire. But then it's the third act and the minions get cleared away, and there's just the big monsters left on the table - and this is your chance to be a DM instead of a glorified rules adjudicator.
You can just watch your players tick off the last few hit points, or you can make your combat a story, by having the conclusion be the result of what's happened so far. Have the enemy run, so that the player who hung back can catch him. Have the enemy offer flanking to the character who got flattened at the start and clawed back from death's door with a natural 20, so they can land the killing blow. Have the enemy move to the edge of a ledge "to get range", so that the character that the enemy's been mocking all battle can bull-rush the SOB over the edge.
Anyway. All I'm saying is, story's universal, you don't get to walk away from it just by saying you're in a different medium.
Well put. I am going to have to think on this some more.
e.g. They once managed to lasso a higher level flyer and with their combined strength they started to swirl it around faster and faster, until they released it at full speed at a wall. That'll teach me putting against them a high level creature with terrible strength
.See... I was going to watch that one of these days. Now I'm not.
I recommend you never try to watch the movie Memento... you would be very upset.