TheRPGSite

Quote from: Azraele;1072392...

We remember dropping a statue on dracula because it actually happened at the table. It's satisfying to us as challenge-seeking gamers to solve the "dracula puzzle" in a way that relied on our cunning, creativity and actual real luck. This is why I roll the foe's attack dice out where players can see them: there's genuine tension because their characters are in real danger. They can really lose, so victory is actually earned in the real world. You decide that behind and a screen and the whole thing's a hollow sham.

So, you absolutely can develop narrative mechanics that preserve and encourage this; hell, you don't even have to do that, you can just write traditional rules and get the same result. But it won't turn out the same way every time, and this is a good thing, a vital and needed thing for a game to be a genuine and satisfying experience. Don't lose sight of that crucial element when you're pondering design.

Yes.  I think a better starting point for a traditional game than trying to institutionalize the "boss fight" is to do exactly the opposite.  Don't put all the eggs in one basket.  The big bad is not a person but an organization, or a rival adventuring party, or a loose coalition of monsters.  Their lieutenants and troops aren't merely mooks.  Given that, the top guys don't necessarily need to be quite as tough.  Make at least some of the opposition moderately intelligent or cunning, and this is even more true.

More often than not, a set up like that will play out as something within shouting distance of a traditional story structure.  When it doesn't, it will still usually be interesting, and probably even more memorable.  The very best games I have had were all the exceptions, where earlier conflicts went bad for the players, the tension was up, and surviving to the end--even when the leader types weren't all that tough--was a tension-filled session ending in sweaty relief.  In one game I played at a convention, the GM had the "big bad" as the second fight, and the first fight was tough.  The race to the end was tense, because the whole party was depleted.

Yeah, keep doing that, you are going to have the occasional dud.  That's the time for the players to up their roleplaying a little, let the food and drink flow, and enjoy the catharsis of a walk in the park.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072420Dracula should have imps, and hunchbacks, and wolves, and killer bats, and maybe even some misinformed villagers with torches and pitchforks (who the PCs would rather not have to kill) who've been lead to believe that the PCs are the bad guys, etc. etc. etc.

In the original he had a bunch of Gypsies! :eek:

Quote from: Chris24601;1072376
The funny thing is that even when "hit points" are used, the amount of damage it takes to drop a critter generally works out to "about three 'vulnerability cycles' worth of hits." And it has become recursive back to RPGs where hit point values for opponents are often about equal to three hits from an at-level PC.

This makes sense. I actually aim for 1.5 hits for "level appropriate" monsters in our home brew. This shortens combats, especially with multiple opponents, while still keeping things interesting, at least for my players.

Quote from: Chris24601;1072376
What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.

For my group, this is way to much focus on combat. A more interesting problem for them is "The entrance to the holy cavern is guarded by an Ice Beetle considered holy by the townsfolk whose village surrounds the entrance. The Ice Beetle is known to be immune to charm, poison, sleep and similar potions and spells". Now, you have to figure out how to get in either by stealth, trickery, or otherwise convincing the townsfolk to let you in. (Knowing my group, they would feed half the townsfolk a feast with a sleeping potion and convert the other half to a different religion.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1072376What might work better in line with the OP's original suggestion would be what I've heard terms "puzzle monsters." A puzzle monster is one where its essentially invulnerable to damage unless you work out the puzzle. Say for example, an Ice Beetle whose hide is covered in a layer of ice that absorbs all damage until you successfully deal fire damage to it and melt off the icy coating and then becomes a fairly easy to dispatch monster.

Wasn't there actually quite a bit of that in D&D to start? Trolls keep regenerating until fire/acid. You need to use bludgeoning weapons on puddings or they'll keep multiplying. etc.

Quote from: Azraele;1072392Yeah it's not impossible to develop the idea into more deliberately cinematic combats.

Sure, because changing hit points to number of hits isn't, as has been noted, much of a change at all. But all that's a far cry from the OP, which proposed that an enemy last a specific number of rounds, and that that DM decides how that death occurs at the end of the given time frame.

I guess your point is that the OPs desires might be satisfied in a different way. Which I'd agree with.

Quote from: Chris24601;1072256No. I use systems where both sides are robust enough that it takes more than just a few lucky rolls to end a combat against a "Boss."

Legendary saves (essentially, bosses who can choose to make a small number of saving throws they would otherwise fail) are kind of necessary, if there are any save-or-die effects (although that's more an unlucky roll ending a combat abruptly). Later editions of D&D seem to have removed most of those. You can arrange to slow down combat even for the most combat oriented large party by using various distractions (illusion or simulacrum to take some of the initial attacks, for example).

My biggest objection to the original idea is that it ignores player decisions; either to come up with a clever plan that causes a lot of damage to a monster, or to decide to use more resources, or just better than average tactics. I don't think it's the worst thing to scale up an opponent's hit points because you know the party in your game will deal a lot more damage than their level indicates, especially when you're running a module.

Quote from: Azraele;1072392Yeah it's not impossible to develop the idea into more deliberately cinematic combats. The issue arises when there's *one* way to beat an enemy, in that case. I believe it was Paul Czege that said something to the effect of "The person that thinks of the puzzle shouldn't think of the solution."

The reasoning being that, if you start deciding the outcomes for the characters, and the place they need to be, and what the emotional resonance of that is going to be, you're not playing a game with your friends anymore. You're telling a story to them about characters they made, and occasionally letting them decide on something trivial. Maybe you let the dice decide how that "unimportant" goblin dies, who cares right? But DRACULA, oh man DRACULA, they gotta care about him. They've got to have the CINEMATIC SHOWDOWN with that guy! It wouldn't be THEMATICALLY APPROPRIATE for them to kill him by lighting him on fire with military oil or dropping a statue on his head; naw, there's got to be a THRILLING FINAL STRUGGLE where they've got to NEARLY MEET THEIR MAKER then have a  NARROW BUT CONCLUSIVE VICTORY.

Nobody does that shit with monopoly; sure, it would be rad to organically have a cool thing happen at the table, like rolling 12-12-11 and nimbly dancing around huge motel-bearing properties to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. But if you just, decided that would happen? It's hollow; it's just a story about a cool game, not an actually cool game.

This is why the rash of NAT 20 LOL memes and fake stories are grating; people telling a story about how a game they don't play doesn't work, and we're all supposed to lol and like and share because LOLO HE ROLLED BLUFF WITH HIS BEAR SO THEY THINK HE'S A PEOPLE SO RANDOM LOLOL god kill me.

We remember dropping a statue on dracula because it actually happened at the table. It's satisfying to us as challenge-seeking gamers to solve the "dracula puzzle" in a way that relied on our cunning, creativity and actual real luck. This is why I roll the foe's attack dice out where players can see them: there's genuine tension because their characters are in real danger. They can really lose, so victory is actually earned in the real world. You decide that behind and a screen and the whole thing's a hollow sham.

So, you absolutely can develop narrative mechanics that preserve and encourage this; hell, you don't even have to do that, you can just write traditional rules and get the same result. But it won't turn out the same way every time, and this is a good thing, a vital and needed thing for a game to be a genuine and satisfying experience. Don't lose sight of that crucial element when you're pondering design.

This. This. This. This.

 This is also why puzzle dungeons drive me nuts since often force the players into finding  the one solution you thought of instead of being creative.

In any case they'll probably remember dropping a statue on Dracula a lot more than winning against him in a fair fight due to luck and good tactical decision making. Players love cheating, so set up a game that's all about them cheating. Have rules for their abilities that are clear enough to be able to extrapolate off label uses of them, make it so that the players will be stomped to paste in a fair fight and make sure that the enemies are distracted/dumb/overconfident enough that the PCs have a chance for their cheats to work. And for fuck's sake don't abstract things enough so that their cheating doesn't matter.

An obvious solution is to play systems that depend on other things besides HP's. (https://www.latorra.org/2012/05/15/a-16-hp-dragon/)

It's all just "HP" again anway, regardless the different thresholds, degrees, & modifiers. An abstraction still counted is a counted abstraction. A=A. I'd give up the dream of novelty already, the wheel has been made, and accept it as a conceit with optional taste dials that have mostly been explored.

Your tastes currently wants a dial to compare party compositions for threshold success -- which makes it hard for 3+ combatants, let alone shifting alliances mid-combat -- but OK, you do you until you're happy. :) What does this DO that makes you happy? Answer that and we can get closer to your ideal so as to suspend your disbelief.

I don't mind if the PC's make Swiss cheese of some encounters.  That's awesome.  I also think that it's perfectly reasonable for a true big bad to last a few rounds; unless the party manages to pummel the big bad in an exceptional manner, early on.  The big bad goes down when the DM calls it.

Razor 007 -

On the one hand, I agree that not having hit points can still involve plenty of the unexpected. From playing and GMing Amber Diceless, I often find that there are surprises that come up all the time. The surprises come mainly from player actions and choices, not die rolls. In Amber, monsters don't necessarily go down on some arbitrary schedule or based on dramatic timing. The GM is taking into account things like what tactics and tricks the player is using, what weapons are available, and making a reasoned decision based on those. The same could be done in D&D.

If you're removing hit points, though, it seems to me that most of the D&D mechanics there are becoming superfluous. Much of the choice of tactics and spells have to do with trading off between damage, to-hit, and defense. If the result of each hit isn't numerical, what is the point of all of the other numbers?

I think removing hit points makes sense for going to more of a system like Amber Diceless. Having no hit points in D&D seems like an awkward medium.

The basic problem being spotlighted here is the capacity of a randomized system with extremely complex and variable inputs (i.e., the typical diversity of abilities among both PCs and monsters, especially powerful ones) to produce fluke outcomes inconsistent with the intended experience of the conflict -- either a meant-to-be-brief encounter turns unexpectedly difficult, slow or costly, or a meant-to-be-exhaustively-challenging encounter turns unexpectedly easy or quick.

A number of posters have pointed out that as long as these outcomes are flukes they nonetheless still can, and often do, provide memorable and enjoyable experiences -- especially if the unexpectedness of the result derives from clever player choices, rather than simply an outlier-probability series of dice rolls. However, the OP is not wrong either when he points out that too many encounters of either kind will tend to make the game more boring, so a technique to avoid them may be helpful, especially if the game mechanics themselves do not do enough to reduce this outcome (recognizing that "enough" is a subjective term depending on player experience and goals).

Now I agree with the majority of the thread's posters that simply defining an opponent's capacity to take damage in terms of the rounds the players must survive before the foe goes down, rather than the hit points (or analogous mechanism) the foe can withstand, feels like an oversimplified, unsatisfying and railroad-y solution (and would only look even worse once the players found out this was how things were happening).  However, the incredible nitpickiness and detail of juggling all the different kinds of damage against a hit point total that, for some systems and monsters, can number well into the hundreds can be a significant pain in the ass.  So, herewith, a much simpler system, designed to be used behind the scenes:

- All monsters/foes are rated as Minor, Major, Critical, or Legendary.  A Minor foe has 10 HP. A Major foe has 20. A Critical foe has 50. A Legendary foe has 100.

- Whenever a player successfully hits a foe, the GM assesses it on the fly as a Minor, Major, Critical or Legendary hit, based on how much damage the player actually rolls.  Depending on the PC, the weapon and the foe, the GM may decide that a particular PC can do no more than a Major or even a Minor hit no matter how well he rolls.  A Minor hit does 1 HP damage. A Major hit does 5 HP.  A Critical hit does 10 HP.  A Legendary hit does 20 HP.

- If damage is inflicted by a particularly clever tactic on the player's part, or incorporates an additional "set-up" roll that scores particularly well, the GM can apply a Tactical Multiplier, again rated in levels.  A Clever tactic does x2 damage. A Brilliant tactic does x5 damage. A Spectacular tactic does x10 damage.

If a flaming barrel of oil were dropped on Dracula (a Legendary foe), I might call that a Critical hit with a Brilliant tactic, doing 50 HP -- not enough to kill him on its own, but enough to get him halfway there and more than enough to finish him off if he'd already been significantly weakened during the fight.  Bard taking down Smaug with a single Black Arrow, by contrast, is clearly a Legendary hit using a Spectacular tactic (the knowledge of the bare patch in the hollow of the left breast).

Quote from: Razor 007;1072786I don't mind if the PC's make Swiss cheese of some encounters.  That's awesome.  I also think that it's perfectly reasonable for a true big bad to last a few rounds; unless the party manages to pummel the big bad in an exceptional manner, early on.  The big bad goes down when the DM calls it.

OK, good! You can articulate your desires. :) Sounds like you have stumbled upon the re-invention of the Challenge Rating, though.

And that's OK, too! But now we are getting into: 'What does that serve?', 'How do I truly want it served?', and 'Do the twain ever meet?'

So, the nature of granular combat provides multiple play functions, (in D&D and elsewhere):

• Tactical Challenge - This tests short term Combat Pillar competence, party coordination (formations), character widget building, etc. HP, among other meters, fits here.
• Strategic Challenge - This tests long term Exploration Pillar competence, party cooperation (alliance survival & cohesion), resource management, etc. HP, among other meters, ALSO fits here.
• Opportunity for Content Creation - This allows GM improvisation of details, which may change the cost-benefit analysis of the encounter, such as: # Appearing, Distance Away, Light & Visibility, Social Pillar Reactions, etc. HP, among other player facing meters, usually does not come up here. HOWEVER, their status will factor into player cost-benefit analyses.
• Opportunity for Contextual Flux - This opens access to 'all three game pillars (Combat, Explore, Social)' to matter. Everything from alliances, bribes, pleas for help or mercy, switching sides, hiding, thieving/planting items, beating/killing, kiting, feints, ambushes, etc. is here. HP, among other meters, will factor in cunning play here.

And yet sometimes combat granularity boils down into a penny-ante Encounter that is just "an uninteresting trivial resource tax," (easily beatable, provides no opportunity to learn, nor changes the contextual state,). That is not a Meaningful Encounter. In AD&D 2e it was explicitly called out as such, and recommended to not even give XP for them. It is your job as GM to make interesting encounters, if at the very least to Improvise Content Creation AND open player window so as to Fluctuate game Context.

If you cannot, perhaps say the scale is incomparable (human giant among squishy ants), then many systems suggest to wave these challenges away. Some are explicitly built mechanically with that in mind, such as jhkim's comment about Amber or other such "gods among mortals" games (maybe using play level tiers, whatever). But it is a campaign aesthetic choice, and should be consciously chosen. That is what we are doing now.

So it sounds like you are trying to find a way to RESERVE Big Bad Evil Guys as a meaningful encounter, and focus your playstyle to what you deem aesthetically fun -- I am guessing a preference to big glorious battles?

If that is the case, sometimes it is easier to reassess your current system's conceits to know what baby you are throwing out with your bathwater (my above list) -- and seriously consider whether your desired atmosphere would be better served by another game entirely with a focus more in line to your desires (jhkim's comment about Amber, et alia).

There has been a glut of various 'wheel manufacturing' in the past 40 years since RPGs were created. Know your desired vehicle, figure out the proper wheel-type, get the right tire. :)

I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

Not really a challenge if the pcs will always win.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

But how do the players get to make meaningful decisions? Pulling out every scroll and potion and every last charge on every staff or wand, and the result is the same as if they poked the boss with daggers. Eventually the players will notice your preference for this kind of thing, and conserve their resources, and they'll be annoyed that they can't change the pace of the battle. (But you might get a more cinematic result; the players hold back for a few rounds, appearing to be losing the fight, and then make a dramatic comeback by using their best attacks right after the boss's immunity interval runs out.)

The tolerable approach is to adjust the forces based on your evaluation of the party; if way more players showed up for a session than you expected, it's not unreasonable that more reinforcements happen to have arrived at the big boss's lair. But once you set up the encounter, don't keep adjusting if the first round goes surprisingly well for the players.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

In general if as a GM you're having to "adjust" stuff constantly on the fly then you either need to change how you GM or you need to use different rules so that you have rules that produce the results you want.

I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Can you please clarify? :confused:

It almost sounds like you are advocating for a Schröedinger's Cat Boss, neither alive nor dead until the GM looks at it. I hope not, victory would seem so hollow. :( It'd feel like Illusionism -- regardless of choice we get the same result the GM previously decided.

Don't you like it when actions have consequences? :)

That said, maybe you are talking about improvised content creation at the moment of encounter? Or perhaps you desire altering monster stats beforehand for a better fit for your campaign world? Those both have extremely long histories in RPGs and still respect the meaning of the players' choices.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072895I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Think about it this way. Would you enjoy playing in a game run this way? And if the answer is "no", or "only if I didn't know it was run this way" then don't do it.
If you would enjoy playing such a game,  go for it!

Quote from: spon;1072926Think about it this way. Would you enjoy playing in a game run this way? And if the answer is "no", or "only if I didn't know it was run this way" then don't do it.
If you would enjoy playing such a game,  go for it!

Better yet, would your players enjoy it? Explain to them what you're planning and ask what they think.

How much do your players really care about combat? My players like it for the chance to roll dice, but their favorite combats are when non-combat stuff happens. We had three rounds of players and an orc missing each other. The players had killed all but the one orc. They ended up talking and letting the last orc go in exchange for information. So, defeating the "big baddie" in a round or two is fine with them--because it is the adventure leading up to the bad guy, and the role-playing involved with getting to the end, that they care about.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072916It almost sounds like you are advocating for a Schröedinger's Cat Boss, neither alive nor dead until the GM looks at it.

Now I have to stat up a Schröedinger's Cat Boss. :D

I sort of did this once, but it was during a test-run of a new game and my players knew I was doing it, so the battle could last longer for the test.

When my players and I first tried DwD Studios' BareBone Fantasy, we were doing a one-page from their magazine. The dungeon ended with a small dragon. I wasn't sure about what the players could handle so I left it as written at first. After the first round of combat, I realized the players were ridiculously over matched. I told them what I was doing (reducing the dragon's HP and attack, etc.) and narrated that the dragon seemed to suddenly, mysteriously become sickly and lose most of its strength and power. LOL It was still a ridiculously tough battle for them. (Normally, I'd have stressed their characters' knowledge of how powerfully mismatched the battle was, to give them the chance to sneak or make alternate plans.)

Quote from: Razor 007;1072855I guess I am advocating for the DM to have total free reign to adjust encounters on the fly, if it isn't just a run of the mill encounter.  If this encounter is substantial within the context of the campaign, let the big bad be whatever he needs to be to challenge the PCs and move the story along.

There's no rule that says you can't do this. If the players like what's happening, then it's justified.

For myself, I'll adjust tactically (as everyone does), but I don't change the stats, or fudge the dice rolls. If the players roll over what I expected would be a tough encounter, good for them. The vicissitudes of the dice ensure that the reverse will occur at some point.

Quote from: Razor 007;1072895I don't actually run games this way, or at least I haven't yet; but I am thinking about it.

Then I've got one piece of advice for later:  If you decide to try it, evaluate immediately, but more important, evaluate again after six months to a year (depending upon how much you play).

There are some possible side effects of running that way that will not emerge until the players have adjusted--especially if they are used to a more traditional style.  Specifically, you may see some players continuing to do what they do now, which will probably be very satisfying, but gradually get conditioned into the new form.  There are a small handful of players that will never change how they play, no matter what you do.  For these, it may work fine.

It's a bad idea, but like a lot of bad ideas, you don't really appreciate why it is bad until you screw it up yourself.  The experience should be educational.  Just don't let it wreck your group by ignoring the problems that are likely.

Player: It's a Troll...
DM: Surprise, he has a Breath Weapon!!!
Player: What?  Trolls don't have breath weapons!!!
DM: He just lit up his Sword!!!  It's a Flame Tongue!!!
Player: What the hell?
DM: Exactly!!!  He's a denizen of Hell!!!  A Fiendish Troll!!!


Bwahaha!!!

Quote from: Razor 007;1072988Player: It's a Troll...
DM: Surprise, he has a Breath Weapon!!!
Player: What?  Trolls don't have breath weapons!!!
DM: He just lit up his Sword!!!  It's a Flame Tongue!!!
Player: What the hell?
DM: Exactly!!!  He's a denizen of Hell!!!  A Fiendish Troll!!!


Bwahaha!!!

:confused: OK, but that was already covered by illusions. Those are present in all setting genres, from mental to physical projections, either from self or by others, designed to ambiguate context. This wheel has already been made.

Why are you trying to 'Phantasmal Force' your players, instead of merely their PCs? :confused:

This is the same pitfall issue when playing in dreamscapes and coherency is never established for any length of time. If anything is possible at all times, then there is no correlation to guess causation, even if only briefly. And doing so things quickly devolve into nothing mattering. There is no way to meaningfully react to stimuli, so its a quick ride into passivity until things settle down.

What is to be gained from this? :(

Quote from: Opaopajr;1073064:confused: OK, but that was already covered by illusions. Those are present in all setting genres, from mental to physical projections, either from self or by others, designed to ambiguate context. This wheel has already been made.

Why are you trying to 'Phantasmal Force' your players, instead of merely their PCs? :confused:

This is the same pitfall issue when playing in dreamscapes and coherency is never established for any length of time. If anything is possible at all times, then there is no correlation to guess causation, even if only briefly. And doing so things quickly devolve into nothing mattering. There is no way to meaningfully react to stimuli, so its a quick ride into passivity until things settle down.

What is to be gained from this? :(

I need you to roll a perception check.  Just kidding....

That fiendish troll isn't an illusion.  You just encountered something new and different.  Its existence offers the possibility of new directions in the campaign; not forced any further by the DM, but rather by waiting to see how the players react to the encounter.

Quote from: Razor 007;1073106I need you to roll a perception check.  Just kidding....

That fiendish troll isn't an illusion.  You just encountered something new and different.  Its existence offers the possibility of new directions in the campaign; not forced any further by the DM, but rather by waiting to see how the players react to the encounter.

Pretty sure my players would either:
1) Run away, or
2) Make pals with it and conquer the world

I really should learn my lesson and assume that they'll befriend whatever giant monster I toss at them... My campaigns have a bad habit of ending with player-friendly dragons burning the world to cinders.

Quote from: Azraele;1073122Pretty sure my players would either:
1) Run away, or
2) Make pals with it and conquer the world

I really should learn my lesson and assume that they'll befriend whatever giant monster I toss at them... My campaigns have a bad habit of ending with player-friendly dragons burning the world to cinders.

Some people just want to watch the world burn ... :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1073125Some people just want to watch the world burn ... :D

Gen X reporting for duty.

Quote from: Azraele;1073122Pretty sure my players would either:
1) Run away, or
2) Make pals with it and conquer the world

I really should learn my lesson and assume that they'll befriend whatever giant monster I toss at them... My campaigns have a bad habit of ending with player-friendly dragons burning the world to cinders.

Give the dragons the personality of a Newfoundland puppy. Friendly and helpful but without any working brain neurons. And often lazy.