Failure Conditions

[Elthbert]

First I want to say I really like DDO, I am over all happy with the game and think that on the whole it has been well designed and is always fun to play. That said I really do not like the game mechanic that has been used so much in DDO, which is failure conditions. I particularly find those that are in long quest to be repugnant. Now before we move on, I understand that indeed one can fail in ones mission and " Fail" n the adventure, this is true in PNP as well and I have no problem with the idea that one would not get credit for completingthe adventure, either with favor, or moving along in a quest chain when conditions for success are not met, however, the fact that one is teleported out of the adventure with out a chance to pick up treasure, and that NO xp is recieved is not in Keeping with the spirit of D&D. To Illustrate my point let me tell a story from my PNP experiance.

My DM was putting us through a module , the name escapes me, but in the adventure old wizard has kidnaped a village girlad taken her back to his tower, the party is hired to find her and return her to her father, we entered the Mages Lair and began to fight through his minons, room by room we searchedundead, constructs amd living minons were all present, finally we kick open a room and my DM began readig a discription of a women, sitting at a desk flanked by to giant Skeletons, as soon as the door opened te giant skeletons started to move. Right then I said " I take a called shot for the head of the women sitting at the desk" ( back in first edition called shots were not a house rule, an the head had a quarter of ones hp) anyway my DM sort of looked shocked and asked " are you sure?" to which I confidently replyed "YES!" well we won inititive and I fired, Rolled a natural 20, drilling her inthe head, and killing her instantly" Of course the skeletons did not stop as I had hoped they would, and she was not a necromatic minon butthe girl we had come to rescue. WE FAILED! BIG! but we still got XP at the end of the adventure, and we still got to find the Necromancer and kill him and take his stuff! DDO's kicking you out of an adventure without either is not something I like very much and I don't think there is a reson that 1/2 xp could be awarded or something. I just find this one of the worsts part of the game.

[Tanka]

DDO is not a roleplaying game, despite (yes) having the genre of MMORPG. It's entirely too railroaded to be an RPG. There are no alternate routes, no in-character decisions that affect you for the course of your character's life, nothing like that.

Adventures are repeatable, thus meaning nigh-infinite experience (not to mention loot).

There's no reason to be given XP for failing an adventure in an MMO. Sure, the moneysink that sometimes happens because of it sucks, but money comes pretty fast if you have any inkling of what you're doing.

[Thrudh]

I hate failure conditions too... just because it's not FUN to invest a lot of time in a quest and get nothing for it...

Keep those kind of quests rare please...

Good story though, OP :)

---------

While running Against the Giants 3 way back when (again, thank you Gary Gygax who wrote that series), we had a bad run of luck in the throne room, and nearly everyone died except one guy... well he pulled out our only wish ring, and made the following wish before anyone could stop him... "I wish everyone was back alive again".

The DM considered bringing back every person, monster, etc. that had ever existed on the planet, but decided that the power of the wish would just be a local effect...

So we were all back alive in the throne room... and so were all the giants (and the giant king) that we had just killed... (at least the DM was nice enough to give us back all our hit points - but NOT our spells)

I miss PnP :)

[Uska]

In the first place the failure mechanic works fine in ddo and in the second YES CALLED SHOTS WERE A HOUSE RULE IN 1ST EDITION.

[honkuimushi]

My DM was putting us through a module , the name escapes me, but in the adventure old wizard has kidnaped a village girlad taken her back to his tower, the party is hired to find her and return her to her father, we entered the Mages Lair and began to fight through his minons, room by room we searchedundead, constructs amd living minons were all present, finally we kick open a room and my DM began readig a discription of a women, sitting at a desk flanked by to giant Skeletons, as soon as the door opened te giant skeletons started to move. Right then I said " I take a called shot for the head of the women sitting at the desk" ( back in first edition called shots were not a house rule, an the head had a quarter of ones hp) anyway my DM sort of looked shocked and asked " are you sure?" to which I confidently replyed "YES!" well we won inititive and I fired, Rolled a natural 20, drilling her inthe head, and killing her instantly" Of course the skeletons did not stop as I had hoped they would, and she was not a necromatic minon butthe girl we had come to rescue. WE FAILED! BIG! but we still got XP at the end of the adventure, and we still got to find the Necromancer and kill him and take his stuff! DDO's kicking you out of an adventure without either is not something I like very much and I don't think there is a reson that 1/2 xp could be awarded or something. I just find this one of the worsts part of the game.

Let me guess, the explanation to her father went something like this... "We fought our way through the dread Mage's tower, but alas, we were too late. The foul mage had already slain her. We did the only thing we could and dipatched the villain and brought the body of your daughter back to you." Just hope he doesn't know a priest with Speak With Dead.

About failure conditions-- as others have said, the fact that we end up repeating quests is a big difference from PnP and I don't really mind not getting XP if we fail. We do get any treasure we had found to that point as well as some minor XP for completing optional objectives.

That being said, I do think that failure conditions should be fairly obvious, not something easily accomplished, and should occur near the beginning of the quest. One person souldn't be able to cause failure by doing normal things things like pulling a lever or attacking 1 monster that's attacking them. you shouldn't have to be perfect to succeed.I think the crate defense quests in the harbor are a good example of a good fail condition.

However Stealthy Reposession, Gladewatch Outpost Defense, and Faithful Departed are examples of bad ones. Ever since the changes to stealth, stealthy repossesion can be more easily completed by Mez spells or zerging than stealth. The Prophets attack you and you can't lose aggro whle in the quest. The difficulty in telling the Prophets from the other kobolds is another problem. The restriction doesn't make any sense. Whiping out the entire group would seem to be just as good a solution for the quest giver. Gladewatch, do I really need to say anything? The fail criterion is ridiculous and the steathed, telepoting hobgoblin assasins seem designed to make this quest fail. The main problem in Faithful Departed is the fact that you have to be perfect, and that failure usually occurs in the last room. The issues of knowing when the venerables become active is also pretty lame. In the last room, is it better to sprint ahead, or can you clear out some of the enemies before he becomes vulnerable to attack? I've heard people suggest both. If it's going to cause failure, we should know exactly when he becomes vulnerable.

In short, a little logic goes a long way. If we fail, we shouldn't be asking "Why'd we fail?" It should be pretty obvious why we failed and how we can do better next time.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I avoid quests with failure conditions whenever possible. Nothing is worse than spending 30 minutes in a quest only to have it belly up within sight of the objective. Pre coyle being buffable i remember failing that quest my first time through with 5 seconds on the timer :mad:

It's just not fun.

I don't have a big problem with "allow no more than xxx to die" because you can work with that. No one silly mistake does you in.

But thing like Coyle or one of the Reveared dying being enough to kill you, that's annoying.

[Elthbert]

In the first place the failure mechanic works fine in ddo and in the second YES CALLED SHOTS WERE A HOUSE RULE IN 1ST EDITION.

NO THEY WERE NOT! I will site the page number in the DMG when I get home.

In fact the rule as stated in the DMG was that, when fighting intelligent opponants that a character with out a helm should have a called shot on his head one in every 4 attacks.


This was somewhat problematic because no where did t tell one what AC bonus each helm offered to the head, so we always just assumed that if one was Helmed that your head the same ac as you, it was simpler that way.

[Elthbert]

I avoid quests with failure conditions whenever possible. Nothing is worse than spending 30 minutes in a quest only to have it belly up within sight of the objective. Pre coyle being buffable i remember failing that quest my first time through with 5 seconds on the timer :mad:

It's just not fun.

I don't have a big problem with "allow no more than xxx to die" because you can work with that. No one silly mistake does you in.

But thing like Coyle or one of the Reveared dying being enough to kill you, that's annoying.

I have a problem with "don't allow more than X to die when the AI causes them to literally interpose them between you and the target. Particularly when they are in quest which might take an hour or more and then BAM you fail because someone else wasn't paying attention to thier glancing blow damage. or they leap infront of someones scorching ray etc, etc. My fist time thorugh Crimson foot hive I almost put a fist through my monitor, as the fighter and the rogue killed all three of the spiders in the final encounter without ever targeting them. This occured literally as the the final boss was at less than 10% of his HP. The Mechanic is silly, and ther is no reason for such a thing to kick you from the adventure, even if Xp is with held completly , which I still don't like, it should not kick you from the adventure.

[Heladron]

I have a problem with "don't allow more than X to die when the AI causes them to literally interpose them between you and the target. Particularly when they are in quest which might take an hour or more and then BAM you fail because someone else wasn't paying attention to thier glancing blow damage. or they leap infront of someones scorching ray etc, etc. My fist time thorugh Crimson foot hive I almost put a fist through my monitor, as the fighter and the rogue killed all three of the spiders in the final encounter without ever targeting them. This occured literally as the the final boss was at less than 10% of his HP. The Mechanic is silly, and ther is no reason for such a thing to kick you from the adventure, even if Xp is with held completly , which I still don't like, it should not kick you from the adventure.

I don't mind these quests because generally there is most often a way to prevent the party from killing the spiders, wildmen and sailors. People should know better than to use THW in those quests. If I'm the party leader I make sure to say, NO THW, Sword and Board only or TWF, no cleave or great cleave, no damaging AoE spells. I say that for everyones, including my own, benefit as a reminder. If someone doesn't have a one hand weapon I will loan them one if I know them well enough.

Really it just requires some communication. Someone needs to say this is how we're going to do it. If you have a better way please speak up or this is how we'll do it. I'm always open to suggestions. You can't be afraid to state a plan so that the group has some idea of what to do. Not everyone has been playing two years and the people who know that quest can just ignore you because they already know it, but it doesn't hurt anyone.

I wouldn't mind the protect Coyle quest if it was about 10 minutes shorter. Fifteen minutes is a long time to baby sit that aggro magnet.

In the end, if you don't like those type of quests just don't do them. You'll probably miss out on a nice end reward, but it's not the end of the world.

[tihocan]

I don't like failure conditions either but I like that there are a few quests with them.
It adds some pressure and uncertainty... and you're happier when you succesfully complete them, than in a more "standard" quest where you know you can screw things up as much as you want and still be able to finish it.

I think DDO did a fine job with them, since such quests are largely in minority, and can be mostly avoided if you really can't stand them.

[Uska]

NO THEY WERE NOT! I will site the page number in the DMG when I get home.

In fact the rule as stated in the DMG was that, when fighting intelligent opponants that a character with out a helm should have a called shot on his head one in every 4 attacks.


This was somewhat problematic because no where did t tell one what AC bonus each helm offered to the head, so we always just assumed that if one was Helmed that your head the same ac as you, it was simpler that way.

I dont see any rule in my 1979 copy of dmg talking about called shots. Special attacks listed on page 70 are flank attacks, rear attacks, stuned prone or motionless opponents, magically spleeping or held opponents, and invisible opponets. Then of course yoiu have charge and striking to subdue. I do remember reading somewhere about characters had a chance to be struck in the dead when not wearing a helm but I thought it was 1 in 6 and it was random not a called shot and never remember reading where you had 1/4 of you hitpoints in your head.

[Rekker]

I agree that on failure quests, no XP should be awarded. However, there is no need to force you out of the quest. If a party decides to stay in after the quest is "FAILED" it should be their option to do so.

[Film]

I also have a problem with said types of quests that do not allow the killing of a certain monster type. It is my duty to protect stromreach and if a few mummies, spiders, and kobolds have to die in the process of said responsibilities....SO BE IT!!! Kill em all and let the twelve sort em out!

[ahpook]

I have a problem with "don't allow more than X to die when the AI causes them to literally interpose them between you and the target. Particularly when they are in quest which might take an hour or more and then BAM you fail because someone else wasn't paying attention to thier glancing blow damage. or they leap infront of someones scorching ray etc, etc. My fist time thorugh Crimson foot hive I almost put a fist through my monitor, as the fighter and the rogue killed all three of the spiders in the final encounter without ever targeting them. This occured literally as the the final boss was at less than 10% of his HP. The Mechanic is silly, and ther is no reason for such a thing to kick you from the adventure, even if Xp is with held completly , which I still don't like, it should not kick you from the adventure.

I disagree on this one. You get 4 opportunities to mess up. As you start to use up those freebies, you should be learning that your techniques need refinement. Since the spiders cannot be 1 shotted (unless you are foolishly using a vorpal) there are a lot of easy ways to manage the end scenario. Like every quest, some techniques make the quest doable, some do not.

[ahpook]

I agree that on failure quests, no XP should be awarded. However, there is no need to force you out of the quest. If a party decides to stay in after the quest is "FAILED" it should be their option to do so.

The only exception to this might be Gladewatch since if I fail, I don't want to run around trying to get out (or can you click on the door to exit that one now?) Of course, Gladewatch has a bad failure condition that should get dropped anyway....

[Elthbert]

I dont see any rule in my 1979 copy of dmg talking about called shots. Special attacks listed on page 70 are flank attacks, rear attacks, stuned prone or motionless opponents, magically spleeping or held opponents, and invisible opponets. Then of course yoiu have charge and striking to subdue. I do remember reading somewhere about characters had a chance to be struck in the dead when not wearing a helm but I thought it was 1 in 6 and it was random not a called shot and never remember reading where you had 1/4 of you hitpoints in your head.

AS I said I will cite the page when I get home.

[GeneralDiomedes]

Sissies.

[Elthbert]

I dont see any rule in my 1979 copy of dmg talking about called shots. Special attacks listed on page 70 are flank attacks, rear attacks, stuned prone or motionless opponents, magically spleeping or held opponents, and invisible opponets. Then of course yoiu have charge and striking to subdue. I do remember reading somewhere about characters had a chance to be struck in the dead when not wearing a helm but I thought it was 1 in 6 and it was random not a called shot and never remember reading where you had 1/4 of you hitpoints in your head.

Well I didn't get home until a short time ago and I am really tired, I will have to find the page I was looking for when my mind is more clear. However, Page 28 under helmets , it says " If a helmet is not worn one blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponant is intellegent, in which case one blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 + head blow)."

WHile notthe page I was looking for thiis clearly indicates that called shots were not "house rules" and specifically that called shots for the head were explicitly required by the rules.

[QuantumFX]

OP and anyone else with funny P&P experiences: You might get a laugh out of Knights of the Dinner Table. (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=22_23)

[Uska]

Well I didn't get home until a short time ago and I am really tired, I will have to find the page I was looking for when my mind is more clear. However, Page 28 under helmets , it says " If a helmet is not worn one blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponant is intellegent, in which case one blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 + head blow)."

WHile notthe page I was looking for thiis clearly indicates that called shots were not "house rules" and specifically that called shots for the head were explicitly required by the rules.




But it gives no special effects for this nor states that 1/4 hit points are in your head. It also doesnt call it a called shot. Called shots were posted in some dragon articles and they always gave a minus to your to hit rolls as well as specific effects if you were successful. The little paragraph you point out just states about people hitting possibly in the head. No one I know ever used this rule as it didnt state what the effect was.

[Uska]

OP and anyone else with funny P&P experiences: You might get a laugh out of Knights of the Dinner Table. (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=22_23)

Been a loyal reader and fan for years, Got to play in a play test game of Aces and eights with Dave Kenzer a few years ago(love the game) He invited me to a Hackmaster game but silly me I went to play Champions instead.

[Elthbert]

But it gives no special effects for this nor states that 1/4 hit points are in your head. It also doesnt call it a called shot. Called shots were posted in some dragon articles and they always gave a minus to your to hit rolls as well as specific effects if you were successful. The little paragraph you point out just states about people hitting possibly in the head. No one I know ever used this rule as it didnt state what the effect was.

Well I realize it doesn't say that, as I said after a 12 hour day and an housr home I was too tired to find it. I will find it and post it at my earliest oppertunitiy. Anyway it does say that one could make aimed shots at the head, and that the unhelmed head had an AC of 10 which, is an effect if one attacks the head the AC is determined by the AC of the Helm, which for a great helm was 1 ( best none magical AC in the game I might add) and that the unarmoured head was an AC 10. That is indeed an effect. Back in the day everyone I played with used this rule, regardless of its use, it was the rule, and it specifically allows attacks to the head at the heads AC.

[Uska]

Well I realize it doesn't say that, as I said after a 12 hour day and an housr home I was too tired to find it. I will find it and post it at my earliest oppertunitiy. Anyway it does say that one could make aimed shots at the head, and that the unhelmed head had an AC of 10 which, is an effect if one attacks the head the AC is determined by the AC of the Helm, which for a great helm was 1 ( best none magical AC in the game I might add) and that the unarmoured head was an AC 10. That is indeed an effect. Back in the day everyone I played with used this rule, regardless of its use, it was the rule, and it specifically allows attacks to the head at the heads AC.

Sure but like I said in 30+ years I never saw anyone use it and its still wasnt what you said in your OP which is my entire point. Well good luck and good gaming to you.