Topic: Scaling Adventure Encounters

[munchy]

I think one of the "problems" with HARP and RM is that especially combat does not work within calculateable parameters. In DnD you can calculate the risk, the possible outcome and thus your chances of winning quite easily if you are into that system. It then usually all depends on how you roll.

In RM and even more in HARP combat is devastatingly impredictable and dangerous that even one enemy may with a good roll create a horrible starting situation for the characters. A player of mine once said it this way, and I think it describes the situation pretty well, "DnD is a clean game, you die or you survive, RM is the messy game of maiming! Even if you win, you probably lose a limb in doing so."

[jurasketu]

Yeah, exactly. "What chance is battle?"

But isn't that how it should be? Inexperienced characters should FEAR combat. Its freaking dangerous. Experienced characters should fear battle as well - but often they need not due to overwhelming magical healing, spells, magic items and skill. If party of adventurers has to face EVEN odds - they should die in average of two fights. Even if the party has a 90% chance of winning a fight, after just an average of 10 combat encounters, they'll die. So as GMs, if we want a large number of combat encounters, we have to stack the odds SIGNIFICANTLY in favor of the players - no matter what the game system.

But isn't the idea fantasy role-playing not just combat simulation? I can play Total War or other computer game for hours on end to simulate combat. Mind you, combat situations can be grand fun especially if the players do inventive things to survive and win. But often the memorable combats are the ones where the mighty wizard fumbled the mass kill spell and electrified herself into unconsciousness and the mighty frontline fighter fumbled the first three rounds but recovered just in time to save the day.

I am veteran of Call of Cthulthu, Warhammer Fantasy, and Stormbringer campaigns where combat was something to avoid like the PLAGUE. In those games, if the adventurers ended up in a "stand-up fight" - things had gone really wrong because the usual outcome was dead PCs. So, it was all about the role-playing, investigating, thinking things out, carefully planning any combats, and fleeing from unexpected fights with best possible speed.

So? So I think it might be a good idea to make players learn to avoid stupid fights and reward them for NOT fighting. HARP is particularly nice in that regard, just "winning fights" is meaningless experience pointwise unless it accomplishes a bonafide adventure goal.

Anyway, probably more rambling than I am entitled for my two cents.

Robin

[Aaron]

Actually, against even odds charaters have 25% change to survive 2 battles. With 90% change of winning, charaters have 35% change of winning 10 battles.

[munchy]

I second that Robin, although a good fight is definitely worth, especially if your character needs extensive healing and resting afterwards. That makes the game really interesting, and allow a whiny role-playing situation, which is always nice when players don't boast with their kills but whine about how much damage and pain their character had to take compared to others.

[jurasketu]

Actually, against even odds charaters have 25% change to survive 2 battles. With 90% change of winning, charaters have 35% change of winning 10 battles.

Aaron- Your math is absolutely correct. I was not trying to be particularly precise. In fact, the odds of surviving 7 fights with a 90% chance of winning each fight is less than 50% (48%).

[Aaron]

Actually, against even odds charaters have 25% change to survive 2 battles. With 90% change of winning, charaters have 35% change of winning 10 battles.

Aaron- Your math is absolutely correct. I was not trying to be particularly precise. In fact, the odds of surviving 7 fights with a 90% chance of winning each fight is less than 50% (48%).

No offense, i was trying to make it a joke... not very funny, apparentyl:P

[Rivstyx]

Re: Rivstyx

In 20+ years of RM and more recently HARP (literally 1000s of hours of gaming), I've never had a character slain by a single "weak" creature - ever. Yes, there is a probability that a really high open end and no defense plus a high critical could result in a character death. But most FUMBLE charts (in all systems) have a higher chance of slaying a character than having a basic goblin kill three characters in full armor or being killed by a housecat - and why did you get attacked by a housecat exactly? Which is why I despise most fumble charts... But that's another matter.

In HARP, Fate Points would avoid such a death critical - which is kind of what they were designed to do - avoid the silly vagaries of probability.

I too have been playing for 20+ years.  I started with the big blue box.
I find it hard to believe in 20+ years you never had an open ended roll by something weaker than you kill you.  You must be a far superior player than me or at least have a worse GM

No fumble needed.  The housecat was a familiar and I was trying to kill it.  It scratched my eyes out and stunned me and the rest was history.  Other than being a familiar it had no other magical properties or stats.

[jurasketu]

Re Aaron. I wasn't offended. More mortified at such careless math phrasing on my part... )

Re: Rivstyx. Oh, I've had characters downed by WEAKER creatures, emphasis on plural - but not a "solitary weak creature". We always feared the 10+ orc archer ambushcade. But after about twenty minutes of playtesting Arms Law, we figured out we needed to max out our OB, carry shields, wear heavy armor and in combat put 80%+ into parry. This meant that a 1 or 0 level creature would have to open end and THEN some to score a critical on just a rookie fighter - nevermind a 5+ level fighter with 100+ OB

Sure. With 1000s of encounters out there, a double open end by some pathetic creature, followed by a death critical surely happens - but the odds are less than 1 in 800 IF the creature got the first swing - because if its going all out its likely to get skewered on the first swing.

But wasn't getting clobbered by a housecat funny though? Was it that unrealistic? I mean. Lucky shots DO actually happen.

And as a player, we avoided solo fighting like the plague - because like your example illustrates - if you get stunned by a weak creature - you won't survive unless you were mighty indeed.

But what doesn't even remotely happen is a single first level goblin armed with a dagger killing three heavily armored warriors - its either not true or the GM was cheating.

But anyway, I've seen comments like yours a few times and they always had an urban legend feel to me - so that's why I gave it an arched eyebrow. So I apologize for that.

Robin

[Rivstyx]

Re Aaron. I wasn't offended. More mortified at such careless math phrasing on my part... )

Re: Rivstyx. Oh, I've had characters downed by WEAKER creatures, emphasis on plural - but not a "solitary weak creature". We always feared the 10+ orc archer ambushcade. But after about twenty minutes of playtesting Arms Law, we figured out we needed to max out our OB, carry shields, wear heavy armor and in combat put 80%+ into parry. This meant that a 1 or 0 level creature would have to open end and THEN some to score a critical on just a rookie fighter - nevermind a 5+ level fighter with 100+ OB

Sure. With 1000s of encounters out there, a double open end by some pathetic creature, followed by a death critical surely happens - but the odds are less than 1 in 800 IF the creature got the first swing - because if its going all out its likely to get skewered on the first swing.

But wasn't getting clobbered by a housecat funny though? Was it that unrealistic? I mean. Lucky shots DO actually happen.

And as a player, we avoided solo fighting like the plague - because like your example illustrates - if you get stunned by a weak creature - you won't survive unless you were mighty indeed.

But what doesn't even remotely happen is a single first level goblin armed with a dagger killing three heavily armored warriors - its either not true or the GM was cheating.

But anyway, I've seen comments like yours a few times and they always had an urban legend feel to me - so that's why I gave it an arched eyebrow. So I apologize for that.

Robin

The housecat thing happened and was not an urban legend.  I never said my character was alone.  The other characters were busy engaging the golems and the three mages in the room.  I was trying to kill the familiars to hurt/stun the mages.  There was a cat, a ferret and a raven who were all familiars. 

It was funny and crazy and that was the reason I mentioned it in the first place.  That is also why I remember it so well to this day. The entire party died in that battle.  My character just died in the funniest way.