This is the first post which indicates I should really synthesize my blogs into a newer, better, superblog. I have great hopes of doing this, but it's going to take a little while. Hopefully, the result will not just be a unified blog, and not just a blog that gets posted to a skillion times more often, but a kick-ass website with everyone will flock to see. For now, though, this is just a post that could go equally well on my trollkien blog or here. It's about a blog (namely, the D&D blog), which is why I posted here, but it's primarily about playing D&D on that blog, which makes it fair game for trollkien.

But enough about me, and more about my ranting.

I actually hope it isn't ranting, because I've spent a little time thinking about the situation, and I think I can, if not spread the blame equally, at least offer constructive comments with more perspective than I could've a few days ago.

First, let me describe the situation, and why I think it's a problem.

The D&D blog is a D&D game, run in a blog (hence the name.) The DM is Scott, and the player/characters are me (Bob/Barik), Jacob/Linnam, Aaron/Drusilla, John/Grell, and Fabio/Alonzo. (I'm going to try to refer to character actions with character's names and player actions/comments with player's names, so keep this key for handy reference.) Lately, after an encounter with some orcs, Grell, Alonzo, and Barik got killed. Read the archive if you seek any more details that I don't mention here.

In isolation, this is already potentially a problem. More than half the PCs dying could end a campaign. Scott is conveniently working things so that two of us are going to get raised from the dead, and it sounds like Fabio (the odd one out) is going to create a new character, so there are processes in place to try to keep this campaign alive.

But I don't know if it's enough.

In my opinion, this particular episode is just the latest symptom of a destructive dynamic in the campaign. And I suspect that if it continues, it will suck the fun out of the game. Then the campaign will end not because player characters die, but because player interest dies.

I'd like to be evenhanded about this, but because he's in charge of the campaign, a lot of my comments are going to be directed at Scott. I hope he doesn't take it personally. Of course, I really hope he thinks everything I say is right. :)

In retrospect, the in-combat and out-of-combat parts of the game have been completely disconnected, and needed to be handled differently, and I haven't been changing gears fast enough. (In fact, I don't think any of the players have, although Aaron has done the best job so far.) The party is diverse and the characters are all supposed to be from different places, and the players have adopted the traditional roles of not liking each other and bickering, which Scott has certainly encouraged. And in the out-of-combat "soap opera" part of the game, that's fine. Everyone has been carefully in character, whether that character is silly, self-destructive, unenlightened, or whatever. And the NPCs have taken sides or been helpful or frustrating, continuing the drama. Which is fine, although sometimes these scenarios have gone on too long, no doubt partly because of players talking too much (that would be me), and partly because of NPC scenes.

But in-combat, Scott's tried to make the fights challenging. From completely unreasonable to merely tough, the DM's been assuming that the party will throw away any character considerations and fight as efficiently as possible. And I, for one, have not changed from character to munchkin every combat. This is where Aaron has been able to roll with the changes so well -- for a shrew, Drusilla shuts up and does whatever she can in battle. The only combat "mistake" that I can recall was when she lost her patience and made herself invisible to try to sneak attack the hobgoblin, a job that obviously should have gone to someone else.

This last combat, with the multiple casualties, was a combination of bad luck (which there has been rather a lot of) and some poor tactics, which one can easily attribute to appropriate character portrayal. Grell charged in and got in a lot of trouble in a hurry -- and, as an impulsive half-orc, this is what you would expect. Linnam hung back and fired arrows from safety, not willing to risk anything -- and, as an overcautious spy with no experience in battle, this is what you would expect. Alonzo held back, firing first, and gave a little speech about "archery being the pivot of battle". A reasonable approach, with a flowery description of tactics -- and again, what you would expect. My own character precipitated the battle, seeing a mass of orcs (his sworn enemy) running down a pair of mysterious survivors of a recent battle and trying to defend them. Yep, pretty much what you would expect.

Indeed, the only character that did anything one might _not_ expect is the NPC, Bishop -- although he supposedly has considerable combat experience. He followed Linnam's lead and hung back, and only when Linnam started riding down the mountain did he helpfully point out that "they've waited too long." Thanks, jackass. Try acting like a fighter and not a nincompoop.

One could argue with the last point, about the NPC inaction. "What, you want the NPCs to lead you through everything? It's supposed to be a participatory game, pal." True, and Kray contributed plenty of independent action in combat. I would say that Bishop's portrayal in this particular situation was an exception which made a bad situation even worse, and that friendly NPCs have behaved pretty well in combat.

The point of all this is: combat can be fun, and out-of-combat drama can be fun, but if we have to drop the characterization whenever we're in combat, that's not as fun. And combat is currently set up to be very high-challenge. I don't know much about the challenge rating system or how good it is, but the combats have been skewed against the party in apparently small but significant ways. Here's some examples.

There's no point in discussing the ambush. Not only was it meant to be profoundly skewed, the players were given no opportunity to change the circumstances or effects of the combat. Let's try to leave it behind us and move on.

In the hobgoblin fight, our side was hampered because our friendly NPCs, instead of doing what our other friendly NPC commanded them, tried to charge in and blocked the way through a gate with their horses. (They were summarily killed off, also a common theme with friendly NPC's.)

In the carrion crawler fight, Barik was attacked 8 times after a move action by a crawler. Creatures and characters alike can't take a move action and attack more than once in a round, as it says in the main D&D FAQ, available here. Scott's welcome to adjust rules here and there, but I can't be expected to make smart combat decisions if the rules I have available aren't the rules he's using.

We don't have a cleric. Grell used to be a cleric, but he's defrocked since he killed his twin in cold blood, a surprise move that Scott has included in the storyline brilliantly, but we haven't been given an NPC cleric despite our efforts. Not having such a strong renewable source of healing, as well as a second-tier defensive fighter, makes the party weaker than a generic challenge rating would presume. (Yes, Grell's magic sword has let him wade through grunts; no, this doesn't make up for not having fresh healing. Consider the effort spent by Drusilla administering healing potions during the hobgoblin battle, when she could have been casting spells.)

The fumble rule hurts PCs, hurts characterization, and simply sucks. My personal beef with fumbling is that Barik, who has a 14 Dex, which is supposed to be considerably above average, is apparently dropping things all the time. This really hurts the attempt to portray him as competent, let alone actually skilled, at combat.

But in addition, the effect of fumbling and criticals are both essentially the same -- they increase the variance of the combat outcome. Since each individual combat is skewed in favor of the players, increased variance means the chance that the combat doesn't go well -- dead PCs, forced retreat, etc. -- is increased. An orc fumbling his weapon is rarely important -- he was probably going to die anyway. A PC fumbling his weapon is: he (or she) probably _wasn't_ going to die, but now he might.

The same reasoning applies to criticals, but these have become a part of the game standard, despite Gary Gygax's strenuous arguments against them. And fumbles are more extreme than criticals. A critical is, in effect, a follow-on hit: you roll a 20, and not only do you hit, but you get to try to hit again. A fumble, then, one would expect to work like a negative hit: you roll a 1, and not only do you miss, but you might be forced to miss again. So a fumble is implemented as "you drop your weapon, and have to spend next round picking it up."

Of course, if you can attack more than once with a weapon, which is more likely for a PC fumbling than a monster, this actually costs you two or three attacks. It also makes options like running away more costly (since you'll leave your weapon behind.) If the DM decides that you have to move to pick up your weapon, or otherwise make the fumble any worse than a standard action, then the fumble costs you that much more.

Incidentally, "the chance to hit again" is easier to capitalize on than "the chance to avoid another miss". Conservatively, the attack bonus for a PC will be 3-4 steps higher than the armor bonus they're hitting, while the Dex check to avoid fumbling is more likely to be 1-2. Does it really make more sense for rogues to never drop their weapons, but for fighters to do so regularly? And why does nothing else get fumbled, like a horn being blown on the run?

These are all relatively little details, but they add up: fumbles make combat harder, probably more than one might think; not having a cleric hurts, even with potions, even before one thinks about opportunity costs of buying potions; challenge ratings don't take into account circumstances of the encounter, which are generally under the DM's control.

All together, the combat experience doesn't permit anything but good strategic play. Which is not necessarily bad, but it would have been nice to figure out ahead of time that characterization is only for out-of-combat. In combat, the party can't afford to make ambiguous statements like "Alonzo, you're a powerful front-line fighter who can toss orcs around like hay. Why do you remain here, trying to shoot from a distance?" and for Alonzo to reply "...archery is victory's pivot."

Through no fault of his own, Fabio didn't realize how far away the combat was occurring, and that, because of Grell's charge, it wasn't going to get any closer soon. He may well have missed out on how much damage Grell was taking, which, after all, Alonzo wouldn't have known. No, for this combat to have worked out well, Jacob's comment (or mine, which came later) should have been: "Fabio, we're x distance from the fight, and the leader is whaling on Grell instead of advancing toward us. If you want to use your spiky attack, you'll need y turns to get in range. Also, your arrows are -z to hit from here. Make Alonzo take the heat off Grell." Fabio would have replied, "Alonzo says that archery is victory's pivot...and with phase one complete, I charge down the mountainside, an urgrosh in hand and a song in my heart."

Oh, and he'd have to have succeeded in that DC 20 ride check, which if you think about it is probably overinflated relative to other Ride Checks. More on why "realism" is a bad idea later.