Quote from: Old Geezer;699794First, "high lethality" is not "horribly unbalanced design," it's "different assumptions."

Yup.  High lethality doesn't *inherently* mean "unbalanced" any more than low lethality means "you can't lose."  Just depends on the game and the underlying assumptions.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Is it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?

Apparently, and my response is not just in response to this thread.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739d'Artagnan from Richard Lester's The Three Muskteers,

I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them."  They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.

Quote from: Simlasa;699750he told his brother that it proved he was really playing the game... vs. standing back and watching (his brother is MUCH more cautious).

In a Star Wars d20 game I was in, I was the PC with the poorest stats.  But because I played my Jedi like he was Qui-Gon Jinn, at the end of the game I was the most famous Jedi in the galaxy and the other Jedi player who hated to ever take a single hit was thought by most people to be my apprentice, despite the fact that his stats were way better.

There are no bad characters.  There are only bad players.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699797:rotfl:

I agree, but it's actually true.  "Protect your player character from arbitrary whims of the DM" actually means "I'm still sulking because I got killed because I played stupid in Greyhawk when I was in high school."

Quote from: RPGPundit;699303Can we acknowledge that for some gamers, the (fairly common) old-school game experience of having to go through several abortive characters who die-off at low level (before managing to get to a character that survives long enough to have a decent chance of hitting higher levels) is a turn off without just being a matter of them being whining little pussies?

Nope.

Quote from: Old Geezer;699794First, "high lethality" is not "horribly unbalanced design," it's "different assumptions."

Second, it's not "ivory tower ideology," it's "This is the game I'm running, do you want to play?"

Third, show us on the doll where referee touched your character in a bad way.

Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.

Quote from: Phillip;699808Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.

I think there's a disconnect here.  Mostly I think that Old Geezer thinks that even in old-school AD&D, characters *do* have a good chance of getting to high levels.  Yeah, your first level characters have a good chance of dying if you wade into combat with a tribe of orcs, but that means that you don't wade into combat with a tribe of orcs.  You split them up, ambush them, sneak in and get the treasure, or do other things.  He's also assuming a GM that will allow and even encourage those types of tactics.

An assumption that if the combat system gives you bad odds, you're screwed, kind of rests on the idea that the players have no choice on whether to engage in that combat or not, and that tactics like those described above aren't really available.  Either that, or that players really just want to wade into combat, and aren't interested in the types of tactics described above.

Different games.  High lethality combat systems don't work well with the second type of game.

Quote from: Simlasa;699533Yeah, exactly my sentiments on it. I don't need 5 pages of stats to feel connected to a PC, all it takes is a name and the couple of things I write under 'notes'. I like/want/need the real possibility of death in the game but that doesn't mean I get off on the dying... or seeing other PCs whacked. I just like the kind of play it encourages... and dislike the sort of play where players can trade bennies for re-rolls all day long because that's how goes down in the movies.

I love reading about real life tactical situations and maneuvers, like this for example:

QuoteWe had already divided into two teams and given group combat a try; now, John invited everyone in the group to be on one side while he alone comprised the other. Such opportunities present themselves rarely. In the controlled environment of the classroom, the instructor always has the advantage, but against a dozen highly motivated (albeit novice) swordsmen, there would be no mercy. As they say, John would have to put up, or shut up.

I played this one smart. While a good number of students rushed forward to attack John immediately, I fell back into the second wave hoping that once he was engaged with the others, I could take him on the flank. The only problem with my approach was that John didn't "engage" with anyone. The moment the combat began, he was running.

At first he seemed to be beating a retreat—sensible move, under the circumstances—but once a sufficient gap opened in our ranks, he suddenly reversed course, passing through the gap like a needle through fabric, cutting and thrusting as he ran. On the first pass, he struck one or two students without stopping. Those who slowed down and assumed a "guard" position he simply bypassed, often cutting them on the back of the leg for their trouble. He never stopped to cross swords with anyone.

If I could have witnessed the whole thing from above, a pattern would have emerged. Although we were twelve men against one, the individual was controlling the group. When we closed on him, he circled and ran around our flank. When we stopped to catch a breath, he was suddenly upon us. More than once I had to desperately fend off his seemingly random blows as he buzzed past me.

On the next pass, with half our number already wounded and out of the game, I put everything I had into a diagonal cut at John's passing form—only to strike empty space and receive an incapacitating slice on the back of my knee in return. I was out of the fight.

...

To be honest, the need for tactical swordsmanship did not occur to me until I began to re-read Benvenuto Cellini's Autobiography. I recalled that the Italian sculptor had described a number of melees and I wanted to draw on his first-hand accounts for a paper that I was researching. Much to my surprise, duels are quite rare in this quarrelsome narrative. In fact, the one duel I managed to locate never came to fruition, as Benvenuto's opponent failed to show up—no doubt cowed by Cellini's reputation as a brawler!

Instead, the combats in the Autobiography are down and dirty fighting, often initiated with the dagger and resembling nothing so much as assassinations. The fights are frequently lopsided, with Cellini facing a number of men on his own, or a handful of his friends standing up to fifty men of the city watch. With the advent of firearms, we are accustomed to fights ending in a matter of seconds, but in the days of hand-to-hand, they could go on and on, and a small group of determined swordsmen could hold their own against a much greater number. And well-dressed gentlemen of Cellini's day, like narcotics agents of our own time, never left home without their body armor—in this case, a discreet mail shirt worn under the doublet.

The more I read of Cellini's exploits, the more I realized that despite my study of the sixteenth century fencing treatises, I was completely unprepared for a humid Roman night at the tavern. There was a whole level of combat reality that had passed me by: the realm of tactics.

If your combats are looking like that rather than the group standing there soaking up the steel, you're doing it right. In games with higher level medieval superheroes or low levels of risk, there's no incentive to come up with interesting tactics. Why bother, thousands will perish beneath your blade anyway.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699676And if, instead, you sit down at the outset and explain that there are no 'safe areas?' That they need to play smart and skew the odds in their favor as much as they can?

I've never provided a "safe zone" for starter players as a DM. I do explain that death is likely final for a character unless they think and do something about it. And I make it very clear that if they do something patently stupid - I am not going to pull punches. In fact Im likely to ramp up the lethality.

But if I did provide a safe zone then the players would know and would be warned that crossing the red line or picking a fight with the NPC is begging to get to roll up a new character. Especially if they ASKED for a safe zone in the first place. I went to the trouble of working it out for you so expect no mercy if you then ignore what you requested.

Play smart. Play S-mart.

On the other hand when running Call of Cthulhu I explain the absurd lethality of the setting. And not necessarily physical lethality. A character locked off in an asylum because they lost their last marble staring at a zoog is effectively gone and dead. Same for Dark Sun.

Then you have weird games like Paranoia where you not only are expected to die, you are encouraged to. First mission and we didnt even make it to the assigned site.

Which brings up one problem. There are now so many games with sometimes wildly varied levels of lethality. Players can end up used to one type of lethality and then be dismayed by another games very different approach. Or be attracted.

Quote from: Phillip;699808Shove your doll back where that bullshit spews from. "Horribly unbalanced design" is a fucking opinion, so of course it's a matter of "different assumptions." Maybe you assume you "ought to" have some kind of chance to get a figure to some level, but I can say screw that just as easily as any GM. If you get bored and wander off, though, I won't indulge in the kind of "Look how big my imaginary elf wang is!" posturing that seems to make you feel so manly.

My, aren't WE fierce.

Quote from: Old Geezer;699799I remember the first fight where the Cardinal's Guard interrupt the duel between Athos and d'Artagnan, and Aramis says "There are three of us and five of them."  They are the fucking THREE MUSKETEERS and they're afraid of 3:5 odds.

they were feeling pity. The Cardinal's team could have used a few more guys.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Omega, like a number of others, wants to make his campaign 'newbie friendly,' whatever the fuck that is; at first that meant fudging the dice when something too bad - in Omega's judgement - happened in the game, but now that also means creating 'safe areas' outside of which Omega claims that the hammer may drop if they ignore his neon-sign warnings of 'you're not tall enough to ride this ride.'

Sorry there sport. You are 100% wrong.

I said

QuoteTrue. Safe areas are a option too as long as they have non-com things to garner EXP off of.

And yeah, if they charge off headlong into trouble despite efforts to ease them into it. Well. Let the bodies fall where they may.

As for fudging dice rolls. Sorry. Wrong again. As I've stated before. I use many methods when and where I deem needed. If I had a safe zone, and as stated, I dont. And the players picked needless fights. Im probably going to let the dice roll where they lay. If they were spectacularly willfully stupid then Im more likely to tweak rolls in the opponents favour. And I might even tell em I did afterwards.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699739Is it really that fucking hard to talk with adults as adults and not expect them to respond like children?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;699440No - they're whiny little cunts.

I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.

EDIT: I'm going to add a bit more: When people say things like: "No- they're whiny little cunts" "Where on the doll did the bad GM touch you" or calling people who don't like high lethality games "drama students"... You don't get to claim the high road, sorry. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;699834I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.

Still butthurt about that banana peel, I see.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;699834I'm not sure why you should expect anyone else should act mature if you aren't.

EDIT: I'm going to add a bit more: When people say things like: "No- they're whiny little cunts" "Where on the doll did the bad GM touch you" or calling people who don't like high lethality games "drama students"... You don't get to claim the high road, sorry.

You'd think we were French Foreign Legions veterans forum, discussing the Playstation Generation training methods, rather than 20s to 50s, mostly white collar workers, eh?