Mechanics Cross-Pollination Thread

[squeen]

In theory I could ask on the 4e boards how they handle it, except nobody there plays any version of D&D where the characters are ever really at risk. It's all balanced encounters using criteria that ensure an underpowered team monster.

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

 

[Hemlock]

There are summoned creatures that could serve as a rearguard, but I don't have any players who like running characters with pets so I have never seen it in action. I don't mind running those characters when I am a player, but I have never been in that position, so it has never occurred to me. But now that you mention it, I'm going to game it out. It may be difficult because many summoned creatures come with an incentive to use them early in the encounter, so you may not have the spells available by the time things go south.

When I think about it, a fighting rearguard is functionally equivalent to the old "throw food behind you as you retreat" strategy of OD&D, only the food is still alive.

The related "scatter in all directions hoping that N monsters can only chase down N fleeing targets" strategy can at least turn TPK into PPK (partial party kill). I learned it from reading David Weber's Honor Harrington novels (space opera).

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

<confession>
*coughcough* I actually do this in Dark Forces, because teleportation is the most interesting thing in that game, and playing the Terminator can be fun too if you visualize the Storm Trooper's reactions all the way up the command chain. It wouldn't be any fun in a TTRPG though because there's nothing for other people to do unless they want to roleplay panicking Imperial officers, which is only interesting for about a minute and then you've said all there is to say.

I like challenge because it yields new insights, but sometimes I do enjoy abnegation for relaxation as long as other people don't have to wait around for me to finish.
</confession>

 

[Beoric]

Bet they play videos games with the cheat codes enabled too.

I doubt it, they tend to be rules sticklers.

I will say this, though. I was thinking the other night about the difference between video game experiences if you grew up playing arcade games with a limited number of lives, possibly only augmented if you had more quarters; and console video games with unlimited lives and save points. It may change your expectations towards games in general if your experience is you can never really lose, short of getting frustrated and quitting.

 

[Hemlock]

I doubt it, they tend to be rules sticklers.

I will say this, though. I was thinking the other night about the difference between video game experiences if you grew up playing arcade games with a limited number of lives, possibly only augmented if you had more quarters; and console video games with unlimited lives and save points. It may change your expectations towards games in general if your experience is you can never really lose, short of getting frustrated and quitting.

It certainly would cheapen one's appreciation for the experience of replaying a challenge (e.g. a dungeon level) repeatedly with different approaches until mastering it. Although clearly some people manage to find that appreciation anyway, as evidenced by the existence of Diablo2 speed running as a sport/hobby.

 

[Beoric]

The thing that always annoyed me about level limits is that they rendered elves incapable of casting permanency. Elves being unable to create permanent magic items struck me as inconsistent with the implied setting.

I am sure somewhere out there was some unwritten Gary table rule that everyone knew, or some interpretation of the vague ramblings on item creation in the DMG, that allowed the creation of permanent magic items without permanency. But if so, teenage me wasn't aware of it.

If not for that, the whole thing probably would have been fine for me.

 

[Hemlock]

The thing that always annoyed me about level limits is that they rendered elves incapable of casting permanency. Elves being unable to create permanent magic items struck me as inconsistent with the implied setting.

I am sure somewhere out there was some unwritten Gary table rule that everyone knew, or some interpretation of the vague ramblings on item creation in the DMG, that allowed the creation of permanent magic items without permanency. But if so, teenage me wasn't aware of it.

If not for that, the whole thing probably would have been fine for me.

At least in 2nd edition, level limits are in the DMG specifically so the DM can choose level limits that work for his world; and default elven level limits are high enough anyway that the Exceeding Level Limits optional rule lets any elf with enough Intelligence to cast 8th level spells anyway, reach 16th level. (All elf wizards can reach 15th level; Int 14 or 15 gives +1 to that while Int 19 gives +4.)

Obviously 1st edition default level limits are lower, but teenage me happened a decade or so after teenage you so for me 2nd edition was where I started. : ) But the point is, the implied setting of 2nd edition doesn't have this inconsistency.

 

[Hemlock]

Question for the 1e crowd. On PHB p. 25 it states that higher level fighters get one attack per level against creatures with less than one hit die "and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans". Not sure if "semi-humans" includes humanoids. Also, IIRC, in either or both of 0e and the varieties of Basic, the rule is that fighters get one attack per level against creatures with one hit die or less.

Now orcs are 1HD in 1e, and also I believe in 0e and Basic(s). So if I am not misremembering, according to that working in 0e and B+ a fighter can hit them once per level, but in 1e he can't. Compare that to a 1e goblin, which is technically less than 1 HD, but is very close in stats and worth the same experience.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?

I always hated the inelegant discontinuity of this rule. Maybe a better way to do it, now that I'm older and wiser, would be to let fighters make ((FIGHTER LEVEL/Monster HD rounded up) rounded down) attacks per turn against any monster with fewer HD than their level. Fighting 2+2 HD creatures and you're 7th level? Sure, make two attacks this turn. At 9th level you can make three. If your regular attack progression gives you more than that you can do that instead, e.g. a 5th level fighter fighting a 6+6 HD troll still gets 1.5 attacks per round if he's specialized in his weapon.

 

[squeen]

There is a intentional divide in OD&D/AD&D between what NPCs and PCs. NPC elves can attain higher levels if you, as world creator, allow it. The level limits in non-human races in AD&D were introduced to balance out their other benefits for players. Obviously, if you strongly disagree, you are free to tweak---and many did, ignoring level-limits entirely. The result --> everyone chose non-human races.

So my question is, is the rule in 1e generally interpreted as written, or is it assumed that the 0e/Basic rule applies, and the PHB just contains sloppy language? Can a 1e 5th level fighter hit five orcs per round, or only one?

I've always heard and used it was as-written, e.g. goblins and kobolds, but not orcs. From my experience, there's no good that's going to come from giving fighters even more attacks.

In general, monsters lose and lose often. It's far more challenging for a DM to maintain a viable threat in the world (without putting his finger on the scale, or going to ridiculous world-devouring extrema) than it is to turn D&D into a cakewalk. Why make that even harder with superpowers? Turning D&D in a combat-heavy video-game is a path-of-least-resistance mistake. Stop thinking of your PCs as Conan.

------

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre? Is it a post Star Wars/Luke thing? Or is it a Neo/Matrix thing? Or is it a Harry Potter thing? Whatever the progenitor, it's ubiquitous now. Every hero eventually discovers they are a badass "chosen one" and the final act is a predictable, i.e. "I now realize that I'm more powerful than the bad guy and beat him/her/it at their own game with my superior might." F/X battle (e.g. Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings).

It's sort of like what you imagine chaotic evil demons doing in the Abyss---might makes right, winner takes all.

Contrast that to the roots of the adventure genre (pre-D&D, Appendix N stuff). The weaker ordinary humans either had to out-smart, out-cooperate, or out-maneuver (by either using their own power against them in some way, or discovering an hidden antidote to their might) the villians. But it was rare they ever acquired equal or more power than the bad guy(s). There was an inherent notion of "power corrupts" that seems in danger of being lost in the generational acceptance of personal awesomeness. Now it's: Realize you, the next generation, are inherently stronger...get in touch with that (internal power source)...and then take kick some (revenge) arse. The morality play is gone, replaced by a personal-power fantasy.

Just a Sunday thought for y'all to contemplate.


Final note, the children's-soul-devouring bad witches (from the first movie) were transformed into something sympathetic via a tear-jerking back-story involving the (surprise!) religiously intolerant = evil cultists. Another vomit-ous mass media trend. No one is a villain any more (except Hitler and the judgemental establishment). That also goes well with the Chaotic mindset: whatever you choose to do is understandable if you also were also a victim.

 

[Hemlock]

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre? Is it a post Star Wars/Luke thing? Or is it a Neo/Matrix thing? Or is it a Harry Potter thing? Whatever the progenitor, it's ubiquitous now.

There are a lot of stupid movies trends out there because Disney (and Hollywood itself to some extent) is creatively bankrupt. E.g. there was a period a few years ago where every action movie had a bad guy whose secret plan involved getting himself captured by the good guys.

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure. Qui-gon's diplomatic mission goes disastrously awry due to a hidden adversary; he tries to counterattack but is blocked by superior enemy forces so he and Kenobi disengage ("It's a standoff--let's go" and one second later they are gone) and seek allies. They leverage stealth and the high ground to defeat an enemy detachment guarding a key objective, and form a non-brute-force strategy for winning the war (go to Coruscant and seek political leverage). They experience logistical issues and financial issues but overcome them intelligently, with help from NPCs. Eventually they come back with a party-splitting plan to attack the enemy's multiple weak points in parallel (notably: even if the space fighters had lost, Amidala's capturing Nute Gunray would still have ended the war, and vice versa). Complications arise, real people die and suffer loss, and the hidden adversary suffers a setback but remains a force-in-being and in some ways is even strengthened by the events (because he had an intelligent plan from the beginning, with contingencies).

There are also minor elements I like, such as how the Jedi are positioned as diplomats and Renaissance men rather than just super-soldiers. When it becomes necessary for them to enter a lake and swim down to an underwater city, it's not a big deal because they are prepared--they don their respirators and start swimming.

There are a lot of modern TTRPG players who would be completely lost if you put them in Qui-gon's shoes at the start of the movie, but it's still a brilliant TTRPG scenario for players who DON'T expect to brute-force problems, and I kind of want to run it in Dungeon Fantasy RPG. (With no expectation that the scenario will generate the same events--if the PCs capture Marth Daul and mind-probe him and unmask or assassinate Senator Palpable, it's not a problem.)

 

[Beoric]

I guess here is a good a time as any to mention a movie trend I've been noticing when, on Halloween, we watched Disney's Hocus Pocus 2. About halfway through, my wife and kids decided they didn't remember the first movie, so the next weekend we watched it and then finished the sequel.

Here's what stood out for me: the protagonists in the sequel discovered their "hidden abilities" and were now able to combat the supernatural with their own supernatural powers. Here's the question in this: is that a modern addition to the genre?

Not according to Joseph Campbell. In other myths and fairy tales it can be more symbolic, but film is a visual medium, so I think there is a tendency to want to depict the transformation visually.

In a way this is an Achilles/Odysseus divide. Achilles is a paragon who can fight his enemies directly using his personal power (Luke Skywalker). Odysseus has more human capabilities, but defeats his enemies using intelligence and deception (Han Solo). In most myths the Achilles figure gets his powers very early on in the story: Achilles gets his in infancy, Arthur draws Excalibur as a youth, Robin Hood, Beowulf and Gilgamesh are uncanny warriors when we join the story. Sometimes it comes in the form of items, rather than from within, as with Perseus' gear.

The D&D you hate follows an Achilles model. Classic/OSR D&D is more of an Odysseus model. It's like the conversation we were having about S&S; Conan is Achilles, but when you play in his world you are playing Odysseus.

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure.

As has been noted many times, what makes a good TTRGP does not necessarily make a good movie.

 

[Hemlock]

As has been noted many times, what makes a good TTRGP does not necessarily make a good movie.

Yes, that's what made this such an interesting exception. There's enough going on for players to have lots of freedom and interesting choices, and enough information about the background events for GMs to logically extrapolate the results of player actions within the scenario.

And I also liked how the characters made intelligent decisions and improvised well--the movie is one of a dozen or more ways I envision the TTRPG scenario playing out with good players. (Some of those other versions might not make good movies.)

 

[squeen]

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses guys! Well worth the time it took out of my Sunday-get-caught-up-with-work minutes for the initial post. Thank you!

Didn't Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur's stories ultimately end tragically for the heroes? (Not a rhetorical question, I am fuzzy).

If that narrative was still en vogue, even as in Shane or Eastwood's Pale Rider, I think today's movies would be more nuanced and appeal (to me) more than the current, quite childish, winner-takes-all mode. Logan (2017), which emulated Shane, stood out to me for exactly that same fatalistic melancholy. I'm not saying the hero always has to die, but there should be a price to pay for access to power.

Even in the original Star Wars arc, Luke was never triumphant. Using the Force (aptly named) to "force" a solution was ultimately a trap---the one Anakin fell into, but Luke did not.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

Side note: I was rewatching Star Wars Episode I the other day and I noticed how well it reflects my ideal of a good RPG adventure. Qui-gon's diplomatic mission goes disastrously awry due to a hidden adversary; he tries to counterattack but is blocked by superior enemy forces so he and Kenobi disengage ("It's a standoff--let's go" and one second later they are gone) and seek allies. They leverage stealth and the high ground to defeat an enemy detachment guarding a key objective, and form a non-brute-force strategy for winning the war (go to Coruscant and seek political leverage). They experience logistical issues and financial issues but overcome them intelligently, with help from NPCs. Eventually they come back with a party-splitting plan to attack the enemy's multiple weak points in parallel (notably: even if the space fighters had lost, Amidala's capturing Nute Gunray would still have ended the war, and vice versa). Complications arise, real people die and suffer loss, and the hidden adversary suffers a setback but remains a force-in-being and in some ways is even strengthened by the events (because he had an intelligent plan from the beginning, with contingencies).

As it turns out you are not the first person to make this observation.

 

[Beoric]

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses guys! Well worth the time it took out of my Sunday-get-caught-up-with-work minutes for the initial post. Thank you!

Didn't Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur's stories ultimately end tragically for the heroes? (Not a rhetorical question, I am fuzzy).

If that narrative was still en vogue, even as in Shane or Eastwood's Pale Rider, I think today's movies would be more nuanced and appeal (to me) more than the current, quite childish, winner-takes-all mode. Logan (2017), which emulated Shane, stood out to me for exactly that same fatalistic melancholy. I'm not saying the hero always has to die, but there should be a price to pay for access to power.

Even in the original Star Wars arc, Luke was never triumphant. Using the Force (aptly named) to "force" a solution was ultimately a trap---the one Anakin fell into, but Luke did not.

Achilles, Beowulf and Arthur all died. Achilles was a whiny asshole, so good riddance. IIRC, Beowulf and Arthur defeated their enemies and protected their kingdoms, but suffered mortal wounds in the process; this is probably technically a tragedy but not really one in my books, especially since they were both well past their prime at that point (Beowulf was likely in his 70s), and Arthur went to Avalon and may return.

Wait, didn't you hate Rogue One? That fits the heroic sacrifice trope pretty closely.

Logan is a good example of how the best comic book movies often aren't comic book movies, but drift into other genres.

The Star Wars movies (well, the ones I watched, episodes I-VII) are mostly about faith. Luke's faith in the Force wins the day in Episode IV, and arguably informed Luke's decision not to join the dark side in VI. Anakin's lack of faith causes him to lash out rather than trusting that things will work out. Interestingly, the Jedi's religious creed of avoiding attachments, while Lucas seemed pretty enamored of it, is discredited in many ways throughout various Star Wars properties, including when Vader turn on Sidious to save his son.

Off topic, but one beef I had with the films I saw is that nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy. For example, Anakin was a slave under the Republic, which was clearly a slave culture served by both natural and artificial sentient slaves. The Republic is also clearly an empire, for reasons I will not describe to avoid the wrath of Prince, other than to point out it is expansionist and resource-extracting. The animated and live action series have retconned this to a degree, making the Empire overtly (and often unreasonably) oppressive to common people.

 

[Hemlock]

Off topic, but one beef I had with the films I saw is that nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy. For example, Anakin was a slave under the Republic, which was clearly a slave culture served by both natural and artificial sentient slaves. The Republic is also clearly an empire, for reasons I will not describe to avoid the wrath of Prince, other than to point out it is expansionist and resource-extracting. The animated and live action series have retconned this to a degree, making the Empire overtly (and often unreasonably) oppressive to common people.

The inhabitants of Alderaan were clearly better off under the Republic than vaporized by the Empire.

Anakin was a slave, but not exactly under the Republic--Tattooine was so detached from the Republic that you couldn't even spend the Republic's currency there. It's more like a tiny foreign nation, presumably one of many.

Showing the empire oppressing the common people is less a retcon than filling in the blanks[1]--Lucas never shows any interactions with the common people at all, although Tarkin's dialogue and actions (killing billions of innocent civilians) make it clear that it's a tyranny with no regard for law (e.g. dissolving the Senate) and no concern for its people.

[1] Unless you can show some sort of inconsistency that showing the oppression creates?

 

[Beoric]

The inhabitants of Alderaan were clearly better off under the Republic than vaporized by the Empire.

Anakin was a slave, but not exactly under the Republic--Tattooine was so detached from the Republic that you couldn't even spend the Republic's currency there. It's more like a tiny foreign nation, presumably one of many.

Showing the empire oppressing the common people is less a retcon than filling in the blanks[1]--Lucas never shows any interactions with the common people at all, although Tarkin's dialogue and actions (killing billions of innocent civilians) make it clear that it's a tyranny with no regard for law (e.g. dissolving the Senate) and no concern for its people.

[1] Unless you can show some sort of inconsistency that showing the oppression creates?

Yeah, there is no way of debating this here without discussing many forbidden topics. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hemlock]

Yeah, there is no way of debating this here without discussing many forbidden topics. We will have to agree to disagree.

Huh, really? Could you PM me at least a few details so I don't wonder for the rest of my life what's forbidden about Star Wars and/or how anyone could disagree that Alderaan got a raw deal from the Empire? I may not agree but I'd like to at least know where you're coming from.

 

[squeen]

Without taking things in a terribly controversial a direction, I think a similar argument could be made that, at a superficial level, China and the West look very similar.

Maybe the dividing line is along the lines of how one treats those who disagree with those in power, and whether or not that power is in any way institutionally restrained.

These things may seem small at times, but they are at the heart of what made the West a more evolved system of government that everything that had come before (or have sought to replace it).

I have long thought our international trading policy should be exclusive to countries that are democratic, rather than if they are simply capitalists.

 

[Hemlock]

Without taking things in a terribly controversial a direction, I think a similar argument could be made that, at a superficial level, China and the West look very similar.

Maybe the dividing line is along the lines of how one treats those who disagree with those in power, and whether or not that power is in any way institutionally restrained.

For the record, I don't think drawing real-world analogies necessarily adds clarity to discussions of fictional republics. I.e. I think your second paragraph is still a good point without the first paragraph; and I can see how the first paragraph could lead to a contentious argument about the real world.

I just literally can't understand what Beoric is trying to say by "nobody actually seemed any worse off under the Empire other than the aristocracy". Arguably we never see anybody except the aristocracy (if one considers the Rebel Alliance to be an aristocracy, since they are seemingly well-funded and have military equipment), which makes generalizing about the lives of those we don't see difficult. Maybe Beoric is focusing exclusively on Cloud City/Bespin? (Side note: it's very popular for people to call Empire Strikes Back the best Star Wars movie, but I don't agree. Phantom Menace is the best, followed by Episode IV/A New Hope.)

 

[squeen]

A New Hope was/is clearly the best. Zeitgeist-shifting. Everything that came afterwards was icing and (often unnecessary) elaboration.

Lucas knew what he was doing when he started the narrative there.

Folks liked Empire more because it was darker and more "adult", with a tinge of romance that put Harrison Ford (the "bad boy") more front-and-center. That's all. They were uncomfortable with the earnestness of the original---we live(d) in a jaded world of "cool" facades (that is, before everyone became a "geek" post Harry Potter, Jackson's LotRs, and dot-coms).

Plus, more light-saber dueling.

I do however love that you are championing Phantom Menace. Seeing someone swimming upstream against the flow of public opinion is almost always admirable to me. Right on, man!

If I were to guess about Beoric's claim, I'd assume that he feels that since still there was still a privileged class, poverty, etc....the two equate for the common man. The notion of a (even fictional) beneficent ruler has gotten a lot of push-back in the past 20 years as the old flames of class-warfare have been stoked once again by those seeking to manipulate the masses. I say no more.