Shadowrun has considerably more dangerous combat than D&D. Particularly, as that PC learned, if you try to stand out in the open. But even then, you can play thing more Pink Mohawk than Black Trenchcoat if that's how the group wants to do it.
Well, yea, but you get karma and stuff to selectively soften up the hardness of the combat. The point was more that I tried quite hard to warn him - and the rest of the group - to take combat seriously. And it worked, but it cost a player =(
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Shadowrun has considerably more dangerous combat than D&D. Particularly, as that PC learned, if you try to stand out in the open. But even then, you can play thing more Pink Mohawk than Black Trenchcoat if that's how the group wants to do it.
Well, yea, but you get karma and stuff to selectively soften up the hardness of the combat. The point was more that I tried quite hard to warn him - and the rest of the group - to take combat seriously. And it worked, but it cost a player =(
I mean I love the toughness of Blades in the Dark personally. That game really ends up making your character hurt and does the action/consequence pattern really nicely.
Though if I wanted to be really mean I could use some of the more hardcore optional rules, like short rests taking 8 hours, and long rests taking 7 days...
Shadowrun has considerably more dangerous combat than D&D.
No it doesn't. It just doesn't have encounter balancing rules and so the difficulty is entirely determined by the GM.
The actual rules are considerably more dangerous. Characters take ever-increasing penalties the more health they lose, healing is limited, and there are quite detailed rules for receiving lasting injuries after you take damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The actual rules are considerably more dangerous. Characters take ever-increasing penalties the more health they lose, healing is limited, and there are quite detailed rules for receiving lasting injuries after you take damage.
I've both played and run Shadowrun; the death rate was perfectly unexceptional. All the death spiral did was make you want to actually retreat from combat when wounded, which if anything reduced casualty rate -- it was very hard to go from 'combat effective' to 'dead' without getting any actions (usable to, say, fleet into total cover) in the interim, which is the main thing that drives PC deaths outside of TPK scenarios. It was probably somewhat deadlier than 5e because 5e has a really large buffer between down and dead, but it was less lethal than AD&D or 3e.
The fact that people are more likely to try to retreat in Shadowrun once they're wounded is a perfect demonstration of how combat is more lethal in Shadowrun than D&D. In D&D, if you go down you can be back up to full health in less than an hour with spells and/or potions. Or hit dice in 5E. You can't do that in Shadowrun so there's significantly more incentive to retreat if things start going badly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The fact that people are more likely to try to retreat in Shadowrun once they're wounded is a perfect demonstration of how combat is more lethal in Shadowrun than D&D. In D&D, if you go down you can be back up to full health in less than an hour with spells and/or potions. Or hit dice in 5E. You can't do that in Shadowrun so there's significantly more incentive to retreat if things start going badly.
Likewise there are little used Disarm, Injury, and Fear optional rules. Heck, even flanking is often left out of 5e entirely by many DMs (I suspect because it does slow combat often).
If one implements all of these combined, it can make 5e more dangerous. It also does encourage (or should) fleeing combats that are overwhelming.
The fact that people are more likely to try to retreat in Shadowrun once they're wounded is a perfect demonstration of how combat is more lethal in Shadowrun than D&D.
No it isn't. You retreat in Shadowrun once wounded because the wound penalties mean you can't actually hit anything so there's absolutely no point to sticking around. In any case, the real measure of lethality is "how likely is it for PCs to die" and the answer is "outside of a TPK, not very", just like 5e.
Apparently this thread is now about combat in Shadowrun. I apologize, I was merely making an example.
I think the wound modifiers in Shadowrun change the focus of the game. It isn't inherently more deadly, but it forces you to think about how you fight, because you cannot really afford to stack up those modifiers. So you want surprise in every encounter - if you can conceivably get it. You want to pile those modifiers on the enemy, while avoiding them yourself. And it produces tension - you'll actually panic when you start feeling you can't beat your target numbers.
Trying to swing back to the actual topic, in D&D I always try to use relatively squishy - but dangerous - enemies. And this is likely a lesson I picked up from Shadowrun: Combat doesn't get more interesting, the longer it is. It get's more interesting, the closer you are to losing it (but, critically, without actually losing). And since I'm a mediocre GM at best, it's always exciting for me too, as I may well get the math wrong, and have to rely on my players ingenuity to survive whatever I throw at them anyways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, yea, but you get karma and stuff to selectively soften up the hardness of the combat. The point was more that I tried quite hard to warn him - and the rest of the group - to take combat seriously. And it worked, but it cost a player =(
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I mean I love the toughness of Blades in the Dark personally. That game really ends up making your character hurt and does the action/consequence pattern really nicely.
Though if I wanted to be really mean I could use some of the more hardcore optional rules, like short rests taking 8 hours, and long rests taking 7 days...
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
No it doesn't. It just doesn't have encounter balancing rules so the difficulty is entirely determined by the GM.
The actual rules are considerably more dangerous. Characters take ever-increasing penalties the more health they lose, healing is limited, and there are quite detailed rules for receiving lasting injuries after you take damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I've both played and run Shadowrun; the death rate was perfectly unexceptional. All the death spiral did was make you want to actually retreat from combat when wounded, which if anything reduced casualty rate -- it was very hard to go from 'combat effective' to 'dead' without getting any actions (usable to, say, fleet into total cover) in the interim, which is the main thing that drives PC deaths outside of TPK scenarios. It was probably somewhat deadlier than 5e because 5e has a really large buffer between down and dead, but it was less lethal than AD&D or 3e.
The fact that people are more likely to try to retreat in Shadowrun once they're wounded is a perfect demonstration of how combat is more lethal in Shadowrun than D&D. In D&D, if you go down you can be back up to full health in less than an hour with spells and/or potions. Or hit dice in 5E. You can't do that in Shadowrun so there's significantly more incentive to retreat if things start going badly.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This very much depends on which optional rules you choose to implement. Many of us often forget that Gritty Realism is a rule option: Dungeon Master’s Workshop - Dungeon Master’s Guide - Sources - D&D Beyond (dndbeyond.com)
Likewise there are little used Disarm, Injury, and Fear optional rules. Heck, even flanking is often left out of 5e entirely by many DMs (I suspect because it does slow combat often).
If one implements all of these combined, it can make 5e more dangerous. It also does encourage (or should) fleeing combats that are overwhelming.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
No it isn't. You retreat in Shadowrun once wounded because the wound penalties mean you can't actually hit anything so there's absolutely no point to sticking around. In any case, the real measure of lethality is "how likely is it for PCs to die" and the answer is "outside of a TPK, not very", just like 5e.
Apparently this thread is now about combat in Shadowrun. I apologize, I was merely making an example.
I think the wound modifiers in Shadowrun change the focus of the game. It isn't inherently more deadly, but it forces you to think about how you fight, because you cannot really afford to stack up those modifiers. So you want surprise in every encounter - if you can conceivably get it. You want to pile those modifiers on the enemy, while avoiding them yourself. And it produces tension - you'll actually panic when you start feeling you can't beat your target numbers.
Trying to swing back to the actual topic, in D&D I always try to use relatively squishy - but dangerous - enemies. And this is likely a lesson I picked up from Shadowrun: Combat doesn't get more interesting, the longer it is. It get's more interesting, the closer you are to losing it (but, critically, without actually losing). And since I'm a mediocre GM at best, it's always exciting for me too, as I may well get the math wrong, and have to rely on my players ingenuity to survive whatever I throw at them anyways.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.