Some playtest...here was Mike's Big Adventure.

1) investigate mysterious tower.
2) Go to tower
3) get attacked by demon thing
4) everybody dies

;-)

I think my Leprechan actually survived by running away using Magic Word "Vanish" or something...

Yeah, actually we used some sort of ability to be rid of the demon, I think. In general, a creative player can always create an out. But this begs the question, when is this in the spirit of the game, and when is it a croc?

For example, we fight a dragon that's way over our heads. But a Player uses his PC's "Geology" skill to maneuver the dragon over a spot in the ground that's weak, and uses some successes to narrate the ground giving way, and crushing the dragon as it falls in.

Now, wait, you say, that's not fair, because it should only do damage besed on the successes applied. Sure. But what of the commonly cited example of using a "Secret Door Detection" ability to "get away"? Isn't that using the Law of Successes to circumvent the power of the encounter?

What it seems to me is that basically, you can use abilities to get into and out of trouble using the Law of Successes, but you can't use them to win a combat by bypassing the rules. Seems equitable, as the character gains nothing in terms of EXP if he does not win.

Is this the intent, Clinton? Or am I missing some other perspective?

As such, banishing the demon (or turning it to stone, or whatever we did), is legal as a sort of "special effect" of circumventing the encounter. You just get no EXP for it.

Mike

The way I've explained it, Successes may only be used to state FACTS (as well as add to future rolls or damage).

A fact is something that's true NOW, does not contradict something already proven, and is not subject to chance or fortune.

Therefore "There is a secret door" is a fact, if you've been searching for it. The difficulty has already been set by the GM and overcome.
"The roof falls in on the Dragon" is a fact if you've been setting it up to do so. Again, difficulty set and overcome.
But "The Dragon is dead" is subject to the damage roll. It's only a fact if the difficulty roll, already set by the dragon's stats, has been overcome.

I WOULD allow "The falling roof has covered the Dragon" - it can still get out using it's Virility vs. the dice used for the attack.
I would also allow "The Dragon is DEAD" so long as it's followed by "Yes, you now realise, ZOMBIE DRAGON!!!"

Wulf

I see what you're saying. And I agree. I'm not at all suggesting that we allow the dragon to be successfully defeated with Fact mechanics. I'm just looking at how this relates to the escape mechanics.

For example, if I try to escape through a secret door just invented with my ability, I could as the GM, for example, say that the Dragon used his great might to tear through the wall (making the appropriate roll), and then continues to fight the player.

What I'm saying is that there seems to be a feel to the mechanics that "escaping" via facts allows you to "disconnect" from the encounter in a way that means that the encountered NPCs cannot follow. The fact "I get away" potentially ignores all the statistical information about the foe that says, "no you don't". Which is what we're saying can't happen with facts. Basically I'm saying that either a PC can void facts in certain circumstances and escape, which is an exception to the general rule you state, or he cannot escape without somehow "defeating" the opponent's ability to follow. But there's no metric for this per se as there is for combat (flesh wounds).

Perhaps I've read the whole escape thing wrong.

The thing is, it makes sense in a lot of ways. The other option is that a creative GM is going to be just as able to keep the bad guys on the tail of the PCs and force them to fight it out in most cases. So that means that escape is not really an option in lot of cases. But it makes sense dramatically and mechanically to allow such escapes. After all, the player earns no EXP for escaping. Thus he's out whatever resources he lost in the fight, and gains nothing for it.

It occurs to me as I type this, that this would be a cool way to create a use for movement powers. Say that your adroitness is like Flesh wounds when escaping (and can be aded to with appropriate skills like Running). When the persued character's pool is down to zero, the persuer catches up. When the one persuing gets down to zero first the persued escapes. These pools, of course then refresh.

In this case, escaping becomes parallel of combat in that it's potentially as difficult as (or more difficult than) killing the creature. In fact you could get EXP as per goals for doing this.

The point I guess is that in the text it says that one can get EXP for dealing with a creature in a manner other than killing it. But everything that I see indicates that no matter what you do it comes down to reducing it's flesh wounds to zero.

Can I talk to the dragon, and convince it to quit it's rampaging ways with a simple Persuade roll? If so, do I get EXP for it? If so, that's the only way to go, as it's going to be waaaay easier to do it that way than to fight it.

Do you see my problem? Or am I missing something simple?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I see what you're saying. And I agree. I'm not at all suggesting that we allow the dragon to be successfully defeated with Fact mechanics. I'm just looking at how this relates to the escape mechanics.

It occurs to me as I type this, that this would be a cool way to create a use for movement powers. Say that your adroitness is like Flesh wounds when escaping (and can be aded to with appropriate skills like Running). When the persued character's pool is down to zero, the persuer catches up. When the one persuing gets down to zero first the persued escapes. These pools, of course then refresh.

Re: escaping, persuading, and otherwise getting the hell out of combat encounters

All of the above is correct. That is, of course you can use a fact to find a secret door in the middle of combat and escape (or convince the dragon not to eat you, or whatever.) If the threat still remains, you get no XP, as well.

However, the GM is encouraged to screw you over on this if she likes. The dragon might rampage through a wall, not believe you, etc. The real danger in using any of these shortcuts is in the actual Test. For example, to escape the Test would be Adroitness + any running Ability vs. the dragon's Adroitness + any pertinent Ability. If successful, you could state that you run away; if not, the GM may hose you badly. Even if successful, the GM may use his authorial power to state something like, "You make it through the door, and the dragon's head comes through right after you, breathing flame everywhere."

Either you guys are making this too complex, or I'm missing the problem (which is more likely.) In terms of design, though, it is supposed to be easier to resolve a non-violent action than a violent one.

I think that there is an issue of the players being able to "escape" with their abilities. But then again, that's some what true of any RPG - characters often have the option to run away (especially smart characters). The key is to make sure that they have good reason to meet an encounter on its own terms. There aren't any uncontested tests that will let players completely negate a dragon, unless it's to somehow get around it. But if the dragon is well-placed, they'll have to go *through* it eventually.

The other key to this issue is that most "in-encounter" tests are opposed by the opponent. They could lure the dragon onto unsafe terrain, but the dragon could still make, say, an adroitness + flight roll to avoid falling (and in the dragon's case, he could fly back anyway... :-)).

But at heart, I think the issue is that characters in any RPG will be able to escape encounters most of the time, if they want to badly. You just need to give them proper incentive not to.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Re: escaping, persuading, and otherwise getting the hell out of combat encounters

Either you guys are making this too complex, or I'm missing the problem (which is more likely.) In terms of design, though, it is supposed to be easier to resolve a non-violent action than a violent one.

I think part of what they're getting at is something that's nagged at me since I started playing Donjon.

It seems like there is this huge shift in power/control levels when we enter "combat mode." For example, you can use a single fact to narrate a bunch of monsters appearing, but its going to take you dozens of facts (used as damage) to kill them.

Now, I don't have quite as much problem with players escaping from dragons like in the example. For one, if the dragon were important (the "big bad") escaping wouldn't help anyone, since you probably have to defeat it somehow. Second, you don't get any experience for escaping. And third, the GM does have a lot of power to screw players over (for example, the secret passage could conceal a whole nest of baby dragons).

Perhaps what is needed is a more specific definition of a fact? Or is the combat/non-combat difference in facts intentional? It certainly works fine in terms of game balance, I just always get the impression that I'm playing two games (Donjon Travel and Donjon Combat), each with a totally different feel.

jdagna wrote: Perhaps what is needed is a more specific definition of a fact? Or is the combat/non-combat difference in facts intentional? It certainly works fine in terms of game balance, I just always get the impression that I'm playing two games (Donjon Travel and Donjon Combat), each with a totally different feel.