So, inspired by the news of Greg Gillespie's impending Dwarrowdeep release, we decided to roll up a Labyrinth Lord party and go through a a few short adventures to get the PCs to 2nd or 3rd level before they chance the megadungeon. The one major thing I do to improve PC survivability at low levels is to add their total CON score to the starting hit point total, though they must abide by their die rolls regardless. A 1 is a 1. And since we have a pretty brutal houseruled crit system, things still stay pretty lethal. As things turned out, the party of 8 lost 3 PCs and 3 of the others were near death when they bailed out of the deepest level of the dungeon. All the PCs had at least 11 hit points; the highest had 23 and left with 2. The deaths were due to a failed poison save, a critical hit, and one normal attack. In true old school fashion, however, they rescued someone in the dungeon who joined the party.
But I must say that I & my players loved it! There's something about that old school lethality that keeps things fresh & dangerous, no matter the level of the characters. We also appreciated the ultra-fast game play after slogging through a DCC module last week. We like the tone & feel of DCC, but it just plays too slow for our table with all the charts, spell effects, etc.
Anyhow, do you do anything to help low level PCs survive? Or do you just embrace the lethality and let the dice fall where they may?
Adding Con (average 10.5) to starting hp isn't that far off from allowing characters to survive to -10 (a common mangling of AD&D1e's death's door rules).
Though these days, I'm more likely to just start characters at 3rd level or so.
I have always let the dice land as they fall. I prefer more lethality to encourage more creative thinking in finding solutions during an adventure.
The combats I have played through with D&D and a lot of similar systems always seems so staid and unimaginative when there's no true threat or danger, and the PCs are basically superheroes who wade through everything that gets thrown at them.
5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me, and has since it's inception (other than if you're using alt rules from DMG for healing and Rests, and I stopped trying to use those when every 5E table I have played with thinks they have veto rights over optional rules now).
Overall I feel like AD&D 1E and similar has the feel I most want, but I like 2E best for the setting material and a Bard that doesn't take forever to become. But I liked the Druidic hard much more than the arcane.
I think I'd like to get an Advanced OSE game using Planar Compass as the setting together right now. Or LFG Primeval Thule. I'm really enjoying that LFG read through that I am doing right now.
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM
Overall I feel like AD&D 1E and similar has the feel I most want, but I like 2E best for the setting material and a Bard that doesn't take forever to become. But I liked the Druidic hard much more than the arcane.
I've used the bard class from the 1e PH, but ditched the weird fighter/thief precursor levels. It's got more of a Celtic feel than the 2e minstrel-y bard, and it's generally more playable than the BTW monstrosity. Can't remember if we had to make any tweaks beyond the obvious (like 1d6 hp instead of 0d6 hp at first level), but if so they were fairly minimal.
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me
My current 5e campaign has been literally on the verge of a TPK at least three times, that come to mind, and probably a couple more that I am forgetting. One of them was a case of a dragon not being able to roll higher than a 3 on its roll to recharge its breath weapon.
That said I don't use (and haven't ever used) stock 5e monsters, so it could be that I'm unintentionally jacking up the difficulty.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 30, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me
My current 5e campaign has been literally on the verge of a TPK at least three times, that come to mind, and probably a couple more that I am forgetting. One of them was a case of a dragon not being able to roll higher than a 3 on its roll to recharge its breath weapon.
That said I don't use (and haven't ever used) stock 5e monsters, so it could be that I'm unintentionally jacking up the difficulty.
Things like that recharge roll are part of what makes it a bit toothless IMO. I prefer x-times per day or after a round or two off do it again....or if we are talking literally the apex of all monsters you can face, breathe as much as it likes. I would say that not using the challenge level on paper monsters (non stock as you say) is about the only way to make it have an edge of danger in 5e. I find adventures as written seem to be rating the encounters at a higher difficulty than they actually are. I could see if you write your own dungeons/adventures you can balance more towards dangerous, but as I mentioned, the recharge breath weapon is a good example of nerfing monsters.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 30, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me
My current 5e campaign has been literally on the verge of a TPK at least three times, that come to mind, and probably a couple more that I am forgetting. One of them was a case of a dragon not being able to roll higher than a 3 on its roll to recharge its breath weapon.
That said I don't use (and haven't ever used) stock 5e monsters, so it could be that I'm unintentionally jacking up the difficulty.
That's cool and all, and I am glad you and your group are having fun! But never since it was released have I ran into a situation either running or playing it where a TPK has been even the remotest possibility. It probably is because as you say you don't run stock.
Most of the groups I have played with (with the exception of my long-running Friday night regulars) are highly resistant to using things that aren't stock. Unless, in many of the cases I've come across, it's one of the many (imo overpowered and under playtested) homebrew races and classes from that one wiki site.
That's more or less why I am burned out on it and don't want to use it as a system at all any longer. I've been seeing the same superhero fantasy style gaming since 2015, and I'm tired of a system of that seems to have those assumptions hard baked into it with few options to represent other gaming styles.
Just got the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion and LFG. Both would support the swords & sorcery style I want in my next fantasy game. Probably with the Friday night crew as I have given up on gaming with most of the outside world since they appear to want 5E exclusively.
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 30, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me
My current 5e campaign has been literally on the verge of a TPK at least three times, that come to mind, and probably a couple more that I am forgetting. One of them was a case of a dragon not being able to roll higher than a 3 on its roll to recharge its breath weapon.
That said I don't use (and haven't ever used) stock 5e monsters, so it could be that I'm unintentionally jacking up the difficulty.
That's cool and all, and I am glad you and your group are having fun! But never since it was released have I ran into a situation either running or playing it where a TPK has been even the remotest possibility. It probably is because as you say you don't run stock.
Most of the groups I have played with (with the exception of my long-running Friday night regulars) are highly resistant to using things that aren't stock. Unless, in many of the cases I've come across, it's one of the many (imo overpowered and under playtested) homebrew races and classes from that one wiki site.
That's more or less why I am burned out on it and don't want to use it as a system at all any longer. I've been seeing the same superhero fantasy style gaming since 2015, and I'm tired of a system of that seems to have those assumptions hard baked into it with few options to represent other gaming styles.
Just got the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion and LFG. Both would support the swords & sorcery style I want in my next fantasy game. Probably with the Friday night crew as I have given up on gaming with most of the outside world since they appear to want 5E exclusively.
Not sure how soon you're starting your Swords & Sorcery campaign, but there's a new game on the horizon that might work for you. It's based on the Siege Engine from Castles & Crusades, which is super easy to use no matter which edition of D&D you know, but keeps the lethality from older editions. From reading their preview (I was a KS backer) it sounds like they've brought in elements from other games, like DCC,to add a Swords & Sorcery feel. Here's the KS page link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos
Theoretically the hard copies will be out in November with the pdfs well before that.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 30, 2022, 05:50:31 PM
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 03:40:32 PM
Quote from: GnomeWorks on May 30, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: Dropbear on May 30, 2022, 12:26:36 PM5E feels pretty toothless for the most part for me
My current 5e campaign has been literally on the verge of a TPK at least three times, that come to mind, and probably a couple more that I am forgetting. One of them was a case of a dragon not being able to roll higher than a 3 on its roll to recharge its breath weapon.
That said I don't use (and haven't ever used) stock 5e monsters, so it could be that I'm unintentionally jacking up the difficulty.
That's cool and all, and I am glad you and your group are having fun! But never since it was released have I ran into a situation either running or playing it where a TPK has been even the remotest possibility. It probably is because as you say you don't run stock.
Most of the groups I have played with (with the exception of my long-running Friday night regulars) are highly resistant to using things that aren't stock. Unless, in many of the cases I've come across, it's one of the many (imo overpowered and under playtested) homebrew races and classes from that one wiki site.
That's more or less why I am burned out on it and don't want to use it as a system at all any longer. I've been seeing the same superhero fantasy style gaming since 2015, and I'm tired of a system of that seems to have those assumptions hard baked into it with few options to represent other gaming styles.
Just got the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion and LFG. Both would support the swords & sorcery style I want in my next fantasy game. Probably with the Friday night crew as I have given up on gaming with most of the outside world since they appear to want 5E exclusively.
Not sure how soon you're starting your Swords & Sorcery campaign, but there's a new game on the horizon that might work for you. It's based on the Siege Engine from Castles & Crusades, which is super easy to use no matter which edition of D&D you know, but keeps the lethality from older editions. From reading their preview (I was a KS backer) it sounds like they've brought in elements from other games, like DCC,to add a Swords & Sorcery feel. Here's the KS page link: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/blackspirefantasy/swords-and-chaos
Theoretically the hard copies will be out in November with the pdfs well before that.
I'm starting it sooner than November, but I will keep my eyes open and check it out.
Thanks!
I allow maximum possible hit points at level 1. Player Characters still end up getting killed, though.
Lethality is a feature. If low level characters are too squishy to adventure, perhaps they should level up while working as hireling to a hardier adventurer.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 30, 2022, 10:58:14 PM
Lethality is a feature. If low level characters are too squishy to adventure, perhaps they should level up while working as hireling to a hardier adventurer.
That could be a fun premise -- each player creates their long-term PC (a retainer), and their PC's boss, who is higher level. The player runs the retainer, but the boss is a NPC and is run by the DM. That means their motives and agendas are set by the DM, the players won't know all their bosses' secrets or even all their stats, and they're subject to NPC-only things like morale checks. To keep things manageable, the DM should probably let the players run their bosses in most tactical situations, albeit with the ability to overrule the players if they keep acting out of character. Might be interesting to create an influence system, where the PCs (retainers) can try to sway their bosses, perhaps for privileges/benefits, or perhaps to held steer their choices. And the build system for the bosses could allow bosses of varying levels and special traits (like exceptional strength, or better magic items), but in exchange for more power your boss will retire earlier. Because that would be the end game -- the bosses retire at some point, and the retainers take over.
This might be a good way to start off a new group of players, or to deal with a group of players with decision paralysis. It's also a good way to hook the characters into the game -- each PC comes with a built-in hook to an NPC. Even after they retire, their former bosses can still serve as mentors and resources.
Quote from: Pat on May 30, 2022, 11:31:58 PM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 30, 2022, 10:58:14 PM
Lethality is a feature. If low level characters are too squishy to adventure, perhaps they should level up while working as hireling to a hardier adventurer.
That could be a fun premise -- each player creates their long-term PC (a retainer), and their PC's boss, who is higher level. The player runs the retainer, but the boss is a NPC and is run by the DM. That means their motives and agendas are set by the DM, the players won't know all their bosses' secrets or even all their stats, and they're subject to NPC-only things like morale checks. To keep things manageable, the DM should probably let the players run their bosses in most tactical situations, albeit with the ability to overrule the players if they keep acting out of character. Might be interesting to create an influence system, where the PCs (retainers) can try to sway their bosses, perhaps for privileges/benefits, or perhaps to held steer their choices. And the build system for the bosses could allow bosses of varying levels and special traits (like exceptional strength, or better magic items), but in exchange for more power your boss will retire earlier. Because that would be the end game -- the bosses retire at some point, and the retainers take over.
This might be a good way to start off a new group of players, or to deal with a group of players with decision paralysis. It's also a good way to hook the characters into the game -- each PC comes with a built-in hook to an NPC. Even after they retire, their former bosses can still serve as mentors and resources.
Having the players control friendly NPCs in combat happens to built into Savage Worlds. With the Guide NPC being role-played by the GM, a detailed influence system may not even be necessary. Moreover, having the influence be mechanical could hinder low level PC from passing the requisite checks, while roleplaying the NPC interaction will lead to the players having to role-play to advance their interests instead of throwing mechanics at the obstacle. Great way to teach players that there is more to game than a character sheets or dice rolls and introduce a non-default fantasy setting by moving the exposition into interaction. It can also teach the value of withdrawing when the higher level NPC orders a retreat.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 30, 2022, 12:08:38 PM
Anyhow, do you do anything to help low level PCs survive? Or do you just embrace the lethality and let the dice fall where they may?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/lZhymdRsuFDmU/giphy.gif)
Yes and no on the mitigate.
I like rolling for hit points at first level. I don't like characters having 1 or 2 hit points, which would seem to be in conflict. But something like Con bonus as a buffer is more than I want. So I ended up doing a flat bonus of 5 extra points at first level, modified by "Might" modifier, which is my Str/Con mix. So your typical wimpy characters bonus is in the 3 to 4 range, with the tougher fighters typically in the 6 to 7 range.
However, I've also slightly increased damage, and hit points scale slower as the characters level. By around 6th or 7th level, a character has about the same buffer against typical hits as they would have in BEMCI/RC. From there, the scaling offense makes the slightly scaling hit points useful in some cases but not in others. A fighter can really dish it out in melee.
I guess you could say I don't mind characters dying in one hit to a medium to high damage roll, but don't care for characters dying in any one hit, no matter how small, even the weakest ones. I want weak characters avoiding melee whenever possible, but it not being an automatic death sentence if forced into it for a round. That is, I like how old school plays around 6th or 7th level, and wanted the lower and higher levels to be more like that. But actually work to produce that experience, not miss the forest for the trees the way 5E does in supposedly a similar goal.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 30, 2022, 09:44:06 PM
I allow maximum possible hit points at level 1. Player Characters still end up getting killed, though.
Same. We play almost completely BtB Rules Cyclopedia at my table, but one of the few things I do change is allowing max HP at first level.
Try playing BX then. Dead at zero HP and things like raise dead are few and far between. Clerics do not gain access to it till level 7. Though in AD&D they do not get it till level 9.
And CON bonuses were not as high yet. 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2 and 18=+3.
And class HD were smaller for some classes. Magic user and Thief use a d4. Cleric, Elf, and Halfling use a d6. Fighter and Dwarf use a d8.
Compare that to AD&D where the cleric gets bumped up to a d8, the Thief a d6 and the Fighter a d10.
Old school lethality is a two edged sword. It raises the stakes, but you get less characterization of your PCs until they reach a level where killing them takes more effort.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 31, 2022, 09:32:13 AM
Old school lethality is a two edged sword. It raises the stakes, but you get less characterization of your PCs until they reach a level where killing them takes more effort.
Does it really raise the stakes?
If your PC is just Bob #8495 and they die so often then are you really going to care if they die. In a way it makes the stakes lower because it's not a big deal if you die, you just reroll and move on to the next guy... as opposed to the games where people write pages of backstory and commission art of their character.
I am not surprised to hear that your players enjoyed the higher stakes lethality brings to the game. I recently left a campaign because the threat of lethality was never present.
I roll in the open for my OD&D game a vast majority of the time, and always in combat. 'Combat as war' has turned into a bit of a cliche, but it is true. Plus using reaction and morale, random tables, and btb stocking rules...a fair amount of mitigation out of the box is provided.
If I were to house rule, I would leave rolling for level 1 HP as written which is 1d6 3LBB, or variable if using supplements. However, any spill over damage beyond taking the player to zero would subtract from Constitution. Using the standard Constitution table from M&M, I'd have them roll to withstand adversity based on their adjusted score. If survived, Constitution would regenerate at one point per week of complete rest, but max is permanently lowered by one.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 31, 2022, 09:52:11 AM
I am not surprised to hear that your players enjoyed the higher stakes lethality brings to the game. I recently left a campaign because the threat of lethality was never present.
Two of my friends/players had to leave our game towards the end of last year because they were moving out of state for work. One of them has been back to visit family a few times since then, and she's made a point to stop by on game night while in town. Apparently the only game they've been able to find to get in on in the small town they moved to is a paid DM, and she said it's horrible because the threat of death is more or less non-existent; the DM's afraid of pissing off a player by killing their precious PCs, especially since the players are paying to play. "I miss dying" has been said more than once, haha.
Quote from: Mithgarthr on May 31, 2022, 10:00:55 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 31, 2022, 09:52:11 AM
I am not surprised to hear that your players enjoyed the higher stakes lethality brings to the game. I recently left a campaign because the threat of lethality was never present.
Two of my friends/players had to leave our game towards the end of last year because they were moving out of state for work. One of them has been back to visit family a few times since then, and she's made a point to stop by on game night while in town. Apparently the only game they've been able to find to get in on in the small town they moved to is a paid DM, and she said it's horrible because the threat of death is more or less non-existent; the DM's afraid of pissing off a player by killing their precious PCs, especially since the players are paying to play. "I miss dying" has been said more than once, haha.
Hah, exactly. That is rough, but I am not surprised to hear it. Actions needs to have consequences or the game turns into Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. I hope your friends are able to find a good game soon.
A paid DM should understand the importance of in-game consequences and know how to market it properly/set expectations.
And just to clarify, we always play lethal old school games. This wasn't a comment of surprise. I've never run any version of D&D beyond house-ruled 1st edition AD&D or BECMI or various house-ruled retroclones or DCC. We're always tweaking things, but it's not about being shocked coming from 5e or whatever. The essential point is that you can't presume the characters will even make it to second level. We explicitly created characters to gain a level or two before trying Dwarrowdeep and lost nearly half the party in the first mini expedition. But now the survivors will recruit a couple more characters and go out again, hoping to gain those levels before the real challenge.
Incidentally, that's what caused our group to quit Barrowmaze a couple years ago. They lost half the party and decided to try Archaia, where they lost another PC but replaced him with a freed captive. This happened again in other scenarios but now that particular group of PCs is preparing to play Necropolis when I get my copy in about a month. I think only 3 of the original 10 PCs of that group are still alive. They're all 8th-9th level now and the other PCs in that group are various characters they've picked up along the way. But it's created a fun backstory dynamic for that particular party because they've been through a lot. To me, this is the real charm of old school play. Now they can raise dead, but even then, certain situations make that impossible or they might fail that resurrection check.
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 31, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Not disagreeing with the criticisms of 5e, but with the game world working like it does, it makes you wonder why every baddie doesn't take one more attack at a downed PC just to ensure they already have two failed death saves going against them. The nasty part is that this coup de grâce can come from even the most pitiful of attackers, so let the big monster knock them down and have the peons finish off the fallen. Of course, this is probably considered "poor form" by modern 5e players where the GM's bad guys are, for stupid reasons, expected to give the PCs a "fair chance" (even while PCs are under no such obligations)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
I was not one of the individuals talking about 5e in this thread, but I am not sure I agree with the goblin comment.
Goblins have 7 HP in 5e, and hit for 5 point of damage. Technically, the goblin does 1d6+2 damage (dex bonus and finesse weapon in there) which is 5.5, so taking that 5 is rounding down. But even if you round up, the worst HP class, a Wizard, has 6 + con bonus hit points.
In OD&D (3LBB) you get 1d6 HP and all weapons do 1d6 damage. Even if you start with 4 HP, you will die 50% of the time you are hit at level 1. Even if you manage 15+ on your Con, which less than 10% achieve, you will still die a third of the time, on average. Nobody dies a third of the time in 5e when hit by a goblin.
You already pointed out the dead at 0 HP difference, so we are in agreement there.
The other I would point out, especially for OD&D, those To Hit tables are stacked against you until you get someone to Hero. For fighting-men (FM) that is level 4.
Quote from: Elf Example
Elves are 1+1 HD monsters with 5 AC. Level 1 FM also has 1+1 HD, and can have 5 AC with chain mail. However, the elf will land hits 5% more often, needing a 13 instead of a 14 to hit AC 5.
It gets worse from there.
Quote from: Dryad Example
Dryads are 2 HD monsters with 5 AC. A level 2 FM also has 2 HD, and 5 AC if wearing chain. The FM still hits on a 14, but the Dryad only needs a 12. This does not count the insane charming ability they throw out a majority of the time.
At any rate, I would like to hear more. I have read just about your entire blog, so I respect how much you know about this stuff. I'm just not seeing it (yet).
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 31, 2022, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on May 31, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Not disagreeing with the criticisms of 5e, but with the game world working like it does, it makes you wonder why every baddie doesn't take one more attack at a downed PC just to ensure they already have two failed death saves going against them. The nasty part is that this coup de grâce can come from even the most pitiful of attackers, so let the big monster knock them down and have the peons finish off the fallen. Of course, this is probably considered "poor form" by modern 5e players where the GM's bad guys are, for stupid reasons, expected to give the PCs a "fair chance" (even while PCs are under no such obligations)
Great call out. And a good DM does this, which admittedly does make 5e more lethal. The last 5e game I played was Strahd with my wife as DM. She regularly smoked down targets. She killed me three times in that campaign, twice while I was downed. And she isn't what I would even call a good DM. She was just brand new and following logic.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 31, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Which is why if you want to move 5E closer too or even all the way to old school play, the very first thing the GM will do is use the optional rules to make the rests occur less frequently and reliably. It won't stop there if you really want to do old school, but that's where it starts. For me, the next step was using the exhaustion rules more or less as written, but being a bit more hard-core about inflicting them with a few house rules--such as every time a character hit zero hit points, take a level of exhaustion. That doesn't do anything about killing a character in the current fight, but it sure does make them hurt and introduce some resource management back into the mix.
Of course, to go all the way or even close to actual old school, that's as much table attitude as anything, not to mention a few more rules tweaks, as has already been discussed. The real problems with 5E and old school are what that implies:
- If the players don't want to try old school, then 5E is a lousy place to start, because the defaults in 5E are not only not old school, if anything they've gone more than halfway to the opposite side. Even some players that don't want to do old school aren't not entirely happy with all hit points coming back overnight, but the ones that want that are not likely candidates for old school.
- It takes too long to make a 5E character to play it old school. People get too invested. So you have to start trimming other things.
- The WotC take on skills is substandard for old school play. You can twist it to kind of, sort of, work, but it's not ideal.
- At that point, there are a heck of a long list of better starting places to get where you are going, even for the "not quite old school", where starting with something old school and house ruling to be a little less so is a better approach.
As for the GM and playing the monsters, I've always thought a middle ground between coddling and killer was a good mix. Namely, whether it was 5E or old school, I'd run the monsters according to their personality and let the chips fall where they may. This meant that goblins weren't likely to focus on downed opponents unless in a snit, but the gnolls and ghouls were. The players weren't scared of every monster, but they learned real quick that some took different tactics unless you wanted a character shredded. On the other hand, fighting relatively civilized foes, it might be a good idea to not develop a reputation for being completely bloodthirsty, unless you wanted it to come back on you later.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 31, 2022, 09:32:13 AM
Old school lethality is a two edged sword. It raises the stakes, but you get less characterization of your PCs until they reach a level where killing them takes more effort.
Does it really raise the stakes?
If your PC is just Bob #8495 and they die so often then are you really going to care if they die. In a way it makes the stakes lower because it's not a big deal if you die, you just reroll and move on to the next guy... as opposed to the games where people write pages of backstory and commission art of their character.
I don't necessarily see this as a plus, though, this depends a lot of what type of game you're trying to play, how fast character creation is, and how easy it is for you to schedule play.
I know that many here like to bring up the idea of "snowflake" characters and associate them with wokesters and a certain type of players, but no matter how much you like to pontificate about snowflakes the reality remains that play time is a limited resource that's hard to schedule for most adults and coincide with other people's free time to actually get together and finally play. And having a character get killed five minutes into combat from a lucky damage roll, cuz low level characters in D&D have such ridiculously low HP, they're more likely to get killed from a single blow that a normal couch potato would in real life, is a waste of time. Specially if you're playing a game with any type of customization options that increase character creation time*.
This isn't to say that a game shouldn't have lethality, but I'd prefer a happy medium between one-hit kill level 1 old school D&D characters and modern, back to full HP from a single long rest cake walks. And TBH, I don't think that the utter randomness having a low HP character get killed from a single max damage roll emulates the excitement of difficult, deadly combat that well. It just feels like a coin toss to me, with very little you can do once you get thrust into a situation where the attack roll is coming guaranteed. It's not like those crazy difficult video games were you need every drop of skill and reflex evading enemy attacks to avoid getting killed as you navigate through the game world, but you can still skid by through sheer skill. It's just a random coin toss every time you get hit, and hope the rest of the group kills the bad guys before the next the round, cuz you ain't surviving another hit if the enemy manages to roll low enough this time around.
Strategy can help minimize the chances of getting hit initially, but there's only so much you can do once combat becomes inevitable, cuz often retreating is just a free attack for the enemy, and won't accomplish much unless you can get into a more defensible position, which won't happen if you get hit on the way getting there.
*Which I know is another thing that some people like to put down, but personally, if a game doesn't have any customization options I won't play it.
Quote from: VisionStorm on May 31, 2022, 06:34:57 PM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 31, 2022, 09:32:13 AM
Old school lethality is a two edged sword. It raises the stakes, but you get less characterization of your PCs until they reach a level where killing them takes more effort.
Does it really raise the stakes?
If your PC is just Bob #8495 and they die so often then are you really going to care if they die. In a way it makes the stakes lower because it's not a big deal if you die, you just reroll and move on to the next guy... as opposed to the games where people write pages of backstory and commission art of their character.
I don't necessarily see this as a plus, though, this depends a lot of what type of game you're trying to play, how fast character creation is, and how easy it is for you to schedule play.
I know that many here like to bring up the idea of "snowflake" characters and associate them with wokesters and a certain type of players, but no matter how much you like to pontificate about snowflakes the reality remains that play time is a limited resource that's hard to schedule for most adults and coincide with other people's free time to actually get together and finally play. And having a character get killed five minutes into combat from a lucky damage roll, cuz low level characters in D&D have such ridiculously low HP, they're more likely to get killed from a single blow that a normal couch potato would in real life, is a waste of time. Specially if you're playing a game with any type of customization options that increase character creation time*.
This isn't to say that a game shouldn't have lethality, but I'd prefer a happy medium between one-hit kill level 1 old school D&D characters and modern, back to full HP from a single long rest cake walks. And TBH, I don't think that the utter randomness having a low HP character get killed from a single max damage roll emulates the excitement of difficult, deadly combat that well. It just feels like a coin toss to me, with very little you can do once you get thrust into a situation where the attack roll is coming guaranteed. It's not like those crazy difficult video games were you need every drop of skill and reflex evading enemy attacks to avoid getting killed as you navigate through the game world, but you can still skid by through sheer skill. It's just a random coin toss every time you get hit, and hope the rest of the group kills the bad guys before the next the round, cuz you ain't surviving another hit if the enemy manages to roll low enough this time around.
Strategy can help minimize the chances of getting hit initially, but there's only so much you can do once combat becomes inevitable, cuz often retreating is just a free attack for the enemy, and won't accomplish much unless you can get into a more defensible position, which won't happen if you get hit on the way getting there.
*Which I know is another thing that some people like to put down, but personally, if a game doesn't have any customization options I won't play it.
I don't think someone having a mental breakdown over their PC dying is good, but you definitely would care more about your PC if you took longer to build them and imagined up more of a backstory for them. So in that way, it is ADDING stakes.
You will care more if that PC dies, in comparison to a random character you probably didn't even name until level 3.
A different kind of stakes perhaps -- dying easier adds mechanical stakes to mistakes, but less stakes in terms of investment because you are actually losing much less.
But if there's less reason to care it can be easier to say that it feels like it matters what happens less.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 08:05:30 PM
I don't think someone having a mental breakdown over their PC dying is good, but you definitely would care more about your PC if you took longer to build them and imagined up more of a backstory for them. So in that way, it is ADDING stakes.
You will care more if that PC dies, in comparison to a random character you probably didn't even name until level 3.
A different kind of stakes perhaps -- dying easier adds mechanical stakes to mistakes, but less stakes in terms of investment because you are actually losing much less.
But if there's less reason to care it can be easier to say that it feels like it matters what happens less.
Excluded middle. You may not care very much about barely named PC #3 that died 30 minutes inside the dungeon entrance. However, in an environment where characters are dying regularly/frequently/often/"enough" (pick your own threshold), you and everyone else
will care about the characters that make it much longer. And while that attachment may not be strictly deeper, overall, compared to a carefully crafted character with a long backstory, it will certainly have its own kind of depth that you can't get any other way.
Maybe it's merely the play I've experienced, but I don't think it is an accident that in a game where character death is a real threat, I've seen players deliberately risk and even knowingly sacrifice their characters for another. They've been willing to lose something that they had grown attached to in order that someone didn't need to. Because in reality the players are attached to every character in the party as an individual, not merely their own. That can go the other way, too, where someone does someone in to save themselves. Whatever it is, it's a strong invoked emotion (for the characters).
Whereas in a more modern type of game, it's more of a team feeling that, "Hey, we are these big heroes that are going to keep pushing until we save anyone and everyone wearing our colors." And face it, that's probably what happens if you keep pushing in that kind of game. I see individual players attached to their own character, and to the team, but not to other characters so much.
I think the reaction to lethality is about tone as much as stakes. If the players feel their 2nd level Fighter is A REALLY BIG DEAL already with a 2 page backstory and plans for greatness (despite having accomplished exactly nothing as an adventurer) they will feel a pinch if he bites the dust. I prefer the think of my characters as having a very short backstory (basics on family, early life, training for future, usually all done in 2 sentences) and the adventures he is now engaging in being his real story/backstory. A new section being written every game session. Some characters end up with really short cautionary tales as stories. Some end up with epic stories of loss, victory, overcoming great odds, winning great treasures and fame.
I guess what I am saying is (in D&D terms) my character has almost zero backstory till around 5th level (3rd if we are talking DCC) because what he/she actually does and accomplishes in game is their story, not what happened to them when they were 12.
Backstory is a hindrance to role-play. A character that has a history has already developed, off screen, and is resistant to change. Conversely, it matters little what the adventurer used to do, what maters is what the adventurer is doing here and now. Room to grow, change, and discover who the character is. I was a farmer, did we have goblin problems, and did I lean anything about dealing with them vs I am the hero who saved my village form the goblin hoard even though I am a level 1 character that has seen no game time until this instance.
High risk high reward is high stakes, high risk low reward is grueling. Mission killing the character may be preferable to perma-killing outright. Each character has some amount of non replenishable destiny points that allow overriding a lethal outcome to barely survivable, possibly needing months to fully recover, and once they are exhausted it is time to retire or die on the job.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 31, 2022, 04:37:55 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
I was not one of the individuals talking about 5e in this thread, but I am not sure I agree with the goblin comment.
Goblins have 7 HP in 5e, and hit for 5 point of damage. Technically, the goblin does 1d6+2 damage (dex bonus and finesse weapon in there) which is 5.5, so taking that 5 is rounding down. But even if you round up, the worst HP class, a Wizard, has 6 + con bonus hit points.
In OD&D (3LBB) you get 1d6 HP and all weapons do 1d6 damage. Even if you start with 4 HP, you will die 50% of the time you are hit at level 1. Even if you manage 15+ on your Con, which less than 10% achieve, you will still die a third of the time, on average. Nobody dies a third of the time in 5e when hit by a goblin.
You already pointed out the dead at 0 HP difference, so we are in agreement there.
The other I would point out, especially for OD&D, those To Hit tables are stacked against you until you get someone to Hero. For fighting-men (FM) that is level 4.
Quote from: Elf Example
Elves are 1+1 HD monsters with 5 AC. Level 1 FM also has 1+1 HD, and can have 5 AC with chain mail. However, the elf will land hits 5% more often, needing a 13 instead of a 14 to hit AC 5.
It gets worse from there.
Quote from: Dryad Example
Dryads are 2 HD monsters with 5 AC. A level 2 FM also has 2 HD, and 5 AC if wearing chain. The FM still hits on a 14, but the Dryad only needs a 12. This does not count the insane charming ability they throw out a majority of the time.
At any rate, I would like to hear more. I have read just about your entire blog, so I respect how much you know about this stuff. I'm just not seeing it (yet).
That's fair enough, and thanks for the kind words!
Well, you've got it right.
I had goblins in my head because a goblin ambush almost TPK my party in one of my first 5e games (the original starter set). They can hide as bonus actions, giving themselves advantage on their shortbows attacks and THEN they can hide AGAIN. That might have left an impression; I should have ran the actual numbers.
(IIRC B/X goblins have 1-1 HD; I'm not sure their THACO or armor is much better than the PCs)
Another foe that impressed me when converting to 5e was the orc; 15 HP is more than most players, and 1d12+3 damage is enough to reduce most to 0.
So, I didn't feel 5e is less deadly in lower levels, except for death saving throws as we've mentioned.
Bear in mind I haven't played OD&D (more B/X, AD&D etc., which had somewhat stronger starting PCs).
However, since I didn't run the actual numbers, I'll concede this point, at least until I can compare stats in more depth!
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 31, 2022, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on May 31, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Not disagreeing with the criticisms of 5e, but with the game world working like it does, it makes you wonder why every baddie doesn't take one more attack at a downed PC just to ensure they already have two failed death saves going against them. The nasty part is that this coup de grâce can come from even the most pitiful of attackers, so let the big monster knock them down and have the peons finish off the fallen. Of course, this is probably considered "poor form" by modern 5e players where the GM's bad guys are, for stupid reasons, expected to give the PCs a "fair chance" (even while PCs are under no such obligations)
Depends on the foe, I'd say; most monsters would prefer to deal with an active threat instead of beating an unconscious foe. I would be better tactics most of the time.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 31, 2022, 09:34:20 PM
Backstory is a hindrance to role-play. A character that has a history has already developed, off screen, and is resistant to change. Conversely, it matters little what the adventurer used to do, what maters is what the adventurer is doing here and now. Room to grow, change, and discover who the character is. I was a farmer, did we have goblin problems, and did I lean anything about dealing with them vs I am the hero who saved my village form the goblin hoard even though I am a level 1 character that has seen no game time until this instance.
High risk high reward is high stakes, high risk low reward is grueling. Mission killing the character may be preferable to perma-killing outright. Each character has some amount of non replenishable destiny points that allow overriding a lethal outcome to barely survivable, possibly needing months to fully recover, and once they are exhausted it is time to retire or die on the job.
What do you mean by mission killing?
Also, maybe something like a "death and dismemberment" table would be a good idea, where when you hit 0 HP rather than die you lose an arm or a hand or something. That way you can keep living but have a price to pay for it.
Though, a lot of players just prefer to outright die instead...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 11:36:25 PM
What do you mean by mission killing?
Also, maybe something like a "death and dismemberment" table would be a good idea, where when you hit 0 HP rather than die you lose an arm or a hand or something. That way you can keep living but have a price to pay for it.
Though, a lot of players just prefer to outright die instead...
"mission kill: (military, slang) An attack or damage inflicted by a weapon that does not destroy a military vehicle but results in it taking no further part in its intended mission."
Knock the adventurer out of action for a while. Not dead, but not capable of continuing the current mission/quest/dungeon. If the incapacitated adventurer is not moved to safety and allowed time to recuperate, death is still immanent. Perhaps allow negative HP as temporary constitution drain, but comatose 1d4 days after going negative and taking a month per point to recover naturally, or a point per week with magical treatment. Crippling and quest failing as to be avoided, but not the end of one's adventuring life by itself.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 31, 2022, 09:34:20 PM
Backstory is a hindrance to role-play. A character that has a history has already developed, off screen, and is resistant to change. Conversely, it matters little what the adventurer used to do, what maters is what the adventurer is doing here and now. Room to grow, change, and discover who the character is. I was a farmer, did we have goblin problems, and did I lean anything about dealing with them vs I am the hero who saved my village form the goblin hoard even though I am a level 1 character that has seen no game time until this instance.
Ahahahaha WHAT.
Is this a joke? I've never had any problems with using backstory as a springboard for character development.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 10:53:35 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 31, 2022, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on May 31, 2022, 04:24:21 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 31, 2022, 12:18:27 PM
There are some misconceptions about OS lethality.
A goblin (or orc etc.) is no more dangerous in OS than 5e; you have more HP in 5e, but so does the goblin, and both deal more damage. In fact, some big monsters are more dangerous in 5e IIRC, which I appreciate.
The main difference is "dead at 0 HP" and "unconscious at 0 HP". Chances of a TPK are about the same, but a single PC dying will be a lot harder to happen in 5e.
No; I'd say the main difference is the lame ass video gamey short rest, long rest, heal up mechanics that are used in 5e. It's not simply about hit points & damage. It's how easy one can recover them. Save or die is another big one. None of these lame losing ability scores temporarily mechanics. You blow the save, it's over. You don't get 2-3 more chances.
Old school play wears you down through attrition in a way that 5e does not. Old school play is predicated to a much greater degree on resource management.
Not disagreeing with the criticisms of 5e, but with the game world working like it does, it makes you wonder why every baddie doesn't take one more attack at a downed PC just to ensure they already have two failed death saves going against them. The nasty part is that this coup de grâce can come from even the most pitiful of attackers, so let the big monster knock them down and have the peons finish off the fallen. Of course, this is probably considered "poor form" by modern 5e players where the GM's bad guys are, for stupid reasons, expected to give the PCs a "fair chance" (even while PCs are under no such obligations)
Depends on the foe, I'd say; most monsters would prefer to deal with an active threat instead of beating an unconscious foe. I would be better tactics most of the time.
In 5e, a downed foe can litterally pop back into action after a simple
healing word and be offensively back to 100%. Your peons can put an end to this, while being unlikely to actually hit/hurt the active threats. Also, PC rarely run, but never do if they have downed but not dead buddies. If those buddies are truly dead, then the PCs might be more likely to run away. Sometimes dealing with the land mine at your feet is just as important as taking out the guys shooting back.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 01, 2022, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 31, 2022, 09:34:20 PM
Backstory is a hindrance to role-play. A character that has a history has already developed, off screen, and is resistant to change. Conversely, it matters little what the adventurer used to do, what maters is what the adventurer is doing here and now. Room to grow, change, and discover who the character is. I was a farmer, did we have goblin problems, and did I lean anything about dealing with them vs I am the hero who saved my village form the goblin hoard even though I am a level 1 character that has seen no game time until this instance.
Ahahahaha WHAT.
Is this a joke? I've never had any problems with using backstory as a springboard for character development.
It depends on how the backstory is done. Some people take backstories as an opportunity to become lame fanfic writers and go into excruciating detail about their character's exalted origins and all these great accomplishments this level 1 character supposedly achieved, that happen in a vacuum and bare no relation to the game world or provide any hooks or ways to bring the character into the game or breathe life into them. They miss the point of what backstories should be about and forget these are supposed to be starting characters, and instead write the end chapter of their character's life, leaving little room for growth or ideas for how to integrate this character into the game.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 01, 2022, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Wisithir on May 31, 2022, 09:34:20 PM
Backstory is a hindrance to role-play. A character that has a history has already developed, off screen, and is resistant to change. Conversely, it matters little what the adventurer used to do, what maters is what the adventurer is doing here and now. Room to grow, change, and discover who the character is. I was a farmer, did we have goblin problems, and did I lean anything about dealing with them vs I am the hero who saved my village form the goblin hoard even though I am a level 1 character that has seen no game time until this instance.
Ahahahaha WHAT.
Is this a joke? I've never had any problems with using backstory as a springboard for character development.
It depends on how the backstory is done. Some people take backstories as an opportunity to become lame fanfic writers and go into excruciating detail about their character's exalted origins and all these great accomplishments this level 1 character supposedly achieved, that happen in a vacuum and bare no relation to the game world or provide any hooks or ways to bring the character into the game or breathe life into them. They miss the point of what backstories should be about and forget these are supposed to be starting characters, and instead write the end chapter of their character's life, leaving little room for growth or ideas for how to integrate this character into the game.
Yeah, but that's a problem with the player/writer, not the concept.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on May 31, 2022, 09:48:23 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 31, 2022, 09:32:13 AM
Old school lethality is a two edged sword. It raises the stakes, but you get less characterization of your PCs until they reach a level where killing them takes more effort.
Does it really raise the stakes?
If your PC is just Bob #8495 and they die so often then are you really going to care if they die. In a way it makes the stakes lower because it's not a big deal if you die, you just reroll and move on to the next guy... as opposed to the games where people write pages of backstory and commission art of their character.
That has been my thought for a long time as well.
I believe that overall D&D hit a certain balance eventually. But keep in mind that early D&D was more about avoiding combat as much as possible. For that very reason that its so lethal. But as noted in the old thread here on a similar topic. Death can be thwarted if the PCs put some effort into it. If one member dies then the rest can start looking for a place that can raise them. And possibly more adventuring to pay the fee. Or go questing to find some artifact that can cast raise.
Was watching an anime last year and it had this concept brought up. There were substantially fewer adventurers, and fewer if substantial level because of the lack of raising magic. And in a novel series read one of the villains was on a huge drive to trigger an undead rising. Why? So he could take advantage of how these things work and become a Liche. Why? So he'd have sufficient time to research a better raise dead spell as the existing one was only in the hands of high level people and casting it tended to fail on civilians and even mid range adventurers as they lacked enough life energy to actually come back even.
The old answer 10-questions (possibly 20-questions) sort of backstory is usually fine. In general, if the backstory fits (with normal sized text) on a 3x5 card (or, these days, in a tweet), that's sufficient to get started.
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
About the backstory stuff, nowadays I dislike it. Anything truly important to the PC should happen at the table. 1st level PCs should not have grandiose origins in most campaigns.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Savage Worlds has a pretty similar metric. Very few critters have more than three wounds. Granted, there's a lot of ways to evade taking one.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.
Would it? Because we already have that in reverse for old school D&D, where low level characters tend to miss a lot, and then become more accurate as they go up in level. Which makes low-level combat very swingy, with survival often hinging on a single good roll. You're proposing making high level combat very swingy. Countering that is the reason why hit points escalate. Because they're a meter that can be used to assess how close your character is to death, and a resource that can be managed. It makes high level combat more stable, and random death before the player is able to react less likely (barring saves, of course).
Greetings!
I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.
I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.
Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.
In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.
Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.
Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.
My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.
Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Pat on June 01, 2022, 04:48:32 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.
Would it? Because we already have that in reverse for old school D&D, where low level characters tend to miss a lot, and then become more accurate as they go up in level. Which makes low-level combat very swingy, with survival often hinging on a single good roll. You're proposing making high level combat very swingy. Countering that is the reason why hit points escalate. Because they're a meter that can be used to assess how close your character is to death, and a resource that can be managed. It makes high level combat more stable, and random death before the player is able to react less likely (barring saves, of course).
That did cross my mind briefly after I posted that, but it depends on how high the defense bonus is and what type of enemies you're facing. If defense progression isn't as high as attack progression it might make things less swingy. And swinginess will only be a factor against high defense enemies regardless. Low level mobs and enemies with penalties to defense (such as large creatures) would still be easier to hit as you advance in level.
Making defense a roll could help reduce the felling of swinginess as well, by turning defense into an evasive action characters get to make to avoid getting hit. Granted, this arguably only disguises the swinginess, but it changes the dynamic a bit by turning combat into a series of evasion attempts, tracking only the hits that actually get through, rather than soaking damage with massive HP. Which arguably emulates skilled combat better than incremental HP.
Ideally, I'd probably prefer a combination of both: Defense Bonuses, and minimal HP increase per level. That way higher level characters still get some increase in raw survivability, but the ability to survive still relies primarily on skill and not getting hit.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 30, 2022, 12:08:38 PM
Anyhow, do you do anything to help low level PCs survive? Or do you just embrace the lethality and let the dice fall where they may?
Like many others, I allow my OSR characters to begin with max hp rolls. Most are still facing death from a single hit. Because I never allow resurrection magic in my settings, I give characters a second advantage as well. They get a death save if a friend (who used an inventory slot to carry bandages and splints) is able to apply them after the fight. If they succeed on the save, they are merely unconscious for a few days and must be carried to safety. This inevitably ends the current mission. Of course a failed save is death.
I enjoy those rules because they are still lethal enough that I find myself constantly pulling for the players, hoping they won't die. In contrast, when running 5e, I sometimes catch myself hoping the players make a mistake so that things can get challenging enough that someone might actually die. It's rare, but has happened. I much prefer running games with rules that let me cheer for the players, rather than the monsters.
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2022, 06:23:35 PM
Greetings!
I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.
I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.
Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.
In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.
Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.
Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.
My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.
Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well developed, campaign appropriate backgrounds are golden, and I'd probably prefer this approach, or short but sweet backgrounds, to other alternatives (no-background red shirts, or crazy fanfic backgrounds in a vacuum). The trick is making something appropriate that ties the character to the world, gives everyone a general idea of what their like, where they come from and what their motivations might be, and perhaps a couple of hooks that might come up during play.
Maybe your character was a street urchin who's running from their home town cuz they stole something from their old guild leader and now the guild is after him. That gives us something that could come up any time the group is in a big city, and a prospect for side adventures and such. But telling me a story of woe about how your level 1 character somehow fought off the entire guild and killed the leader on their own is BS fanfic.
At the other end of the spectrum, disposable no-background characters are only good if 1) you're running quick and dirty gritty action games, and 2) scheduling a game is so easy for you, tossing newly made characters away every session is a luxury you can afford. But from a practical PoV, if you're into more serious, immersive play, and/or you can only game so often, then making characters disposable becomes a hindrance. That doesn't mean characters shouldn't die, but I'd prefer they did cuz players did something stupid, not cuz HP are so low, dying is just a random roll of the die any time they get hit.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 07:03:19 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 01, 2022, 06:23:35 PM
Greetings!
I think having some well-detailed and campaign-appropriate background development is awesome.
I also think having some kind of maniacal zeal for the player characters to all somehow be shallow, nihilistic, misanthropic misfits stuck wearing "Star Trek" Redshirts lacks creativity, and is an unfortunate attitude to embrace.
Yes, I also loathe players that would seek to have character backgrounds that are ridiculous uber-superhero wankfests.
In my view, Players should be mature, responsible, and reasonably devoted or committed to the DM's campaign world. There is, in fact, a middle ground between the two aforementioned extremes.
Merely because a Character is Level 1, does not mean that such a character may not have an interesting, detailed, and campaign-appropriate background. Characters often want to know about their parents, their siblings, their friends. Characters often have other social connections made while growing up, and going through adolescence and into adulthood. Connections, friends, mentors, made through work, through study and schooling, through church or their tribal, Pagan religion. Romances can be important and meaningful. On occasion, family friends can be important, as well as extended family, like grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins.
Player Characters are Classes. Presumably, such classes entail some degree of professional study and training. Wizards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers, etc.--all would have professional training. It is also likely that the Player Characters would form important relationships with their instructors, mentors, and fellow students or recruits.
My campaign world of Thandor features many Historical/Ancient/Dark Ages elements. Many characters likely come from barbarian tribes. Tribal people are deeply connected socially to their friends, family, and tribe. Religion and spirituality are also extremely important. Even when Characters come from a civilized background, many such backgrounds embrace the importance of family, kin, tribe, and community. Religious life involving the local temple or Church is also often hugely important to virtually everyone.
Characters, whether NPC's or Player Characters, benefit immensely from having detailed, appropriate backgrounds that serve to further immerse and anchor them into the campaign world. Such detail and depth furthermore serves to add dimension and active dynamics to the campaign's localized environment. Future adventures, actual realistic motivations, inspiring genuine passions, are derived from such depth of backgrounds. Embracing more detailed, appropriate backgrounds enriches the Player's experience, as well as the campaign as a whole.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Well developed, campaign appropriate backgrounds are golden, and I'd probably prefer this approach, or short but sweet backgrounds, to other alternatives (no-background red shirts, or crazy fanfic backgrounds in a vacuum). The trick is making something appropriate that ties the character to the world, gives everyone a general idea of what their like, where they come from and what their motivations might be, and perhaps a couple of hooks that might come up during play.
Maybe your character was a street urchin who's running from their home town cuz they stole something from their old guild leader and now the guild is after him. That gives us something that could come up any time the group is in a big city, and a prospect for side adventures and such. But telling me a story of woe about how your level 1 character somehow fought off the entire guild and killed the leader on their own is BS fanfic.
At the other end of the spectrum, disposable no-background characters are only good if 1) you're running quick and dirty gritty action games, and 2) scheduling a game is so easy for you, tossing newly made characters away every session is a luxury you can afford. But from a practical PoV, if you're into more serious, immersive play, and/or you can only game so often, then making characters disposable becomes a hindrance. That doesn't mean characters shouldn't die, but I'd prefer they did cuz players did something stupid, not cuz HP are so low, dying is just a random roll of the die any time they get hit.
Greetings!
Right on, my friend! I agree.
I suppose many people that have this hate for "Backgrounds" have played with retarded strangers that make up ridiculous Fanfic backgrounds, as you say. ;D
I have almost entirely played with family and friends, aside from occasional conventions, and visits to the game groups at my local game store. All of my regular players--without exception--delight in making detailed, appropriate backgrounds for their characters. They all know me, they have a good grasp of the campaign world, and they respect it. They know I wouldn't tolerate bullshit. Farmers, milk-maid girls, rat catchers from the nearby town, students of a local wizard or witch, a young recruit fresh from training and study at the local church or monastery. They always make very interesting and cool characters, with interesting and appropriate backgrounds. Family, friends, romances, neighbors, local people from their neighborhood or village. It's all outstanding!
So when people scream about "Backgrounds" I often wonder what the fuck they are talking about. ALL of my players make up cool backgrounds. I expect them to. A DM not allowing or encouraging good backgrounds is really missing out. Having appropriate backgrounds with detail and depth add development, inspiration, and enrichment to the entire game.
Oh yeah. As a DM, I often plunder my player's backgrounds ruthlessly for a whole host of NPC's, dramatic elements, cultural details, all kinds of things! I then blend it into the campaign background material as a whole. I like having my players contribute to building the campaign world, and in the process, they become more immersed into their characters, the campaign world, and everything benefits.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Omega on June 01, 2022, 11:29:38 AMkeep in mind that early D&D was more about avoiding combat as much as possible.
Exactly. In the
AD&D1e PHB on p.109, under the heading
SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES, they write,
Quote"Avoid unnecessary encounters. [...] Run first and ask questions later. [...] shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible."
[emphasis in original]
Note carefully what's being said here: combat is not the aim of the game, as such. The DM is just trying to distract you from your proper goals.
This is
why combat is deadly in 1e: to punish players dumb enough to fall for the DM's tricks. The dumb player's character will die, the player will (we hope) learn, and their next character will be less likely to die. If you as DM make combat less deadly, you are giving players a license to be stupid and never learn. But mastery of a game is part of its fun, so you are taking away part of the fun of the game.
Don't do that.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on June 02, 2022, 03:36:38 AM
Quote from: Omega on June 01, 2022, 11:29:38 AMkeep in mind that early D&D was more about avoiding combat as much as possible.
Exactly. In the AD&D1e PHB on p.109, under the heading SUCCESSFUL ADVENTURES, they write,
Quote"Avoid unnecessary encounters. [...] Run first and ask questions later. [...] shun encounters with creatures found to be dwelling permanently in the dungeon unless such creatures are part of the set objective or the monster stands between the group and the goal it has set out to gain. Do not be sidetracked. A good referee will have many ways to distract an expedition, many things to draw attention, but ignore them if at all possible."
[emphasis in original]
Note carefully what's being said here: combat is not the aim of the game, as such. The DM is just trying to distract you from your proper goals.
This is why combat is deadly in 1e: to punish players dumb enough to fall for the DM's tricks. The dumb player's character will die, the player will (we hope) learn, and their next character will be less likely to die. If you as DM make combat less deadly, you are giving players a license to be stupid and never learn. But mastery of a game is part of its fun, so you are taking away part of the fun of the game.
Don't do that.
One analogy I think works well is the heist.
The goal is to get in and out of the dungeon with the treasure, using your wits and stealth to bypass the traps and avoid the guards.
My 1E perspective on this is old school is NOT lethal. It's just fast. There's a reason AD&D uses 1-minute rounds. It's so you can get through very large battles without it taking up the whole session and you can get on with the adventure.
The baseline figure in 1E is the 0th level human. These generally die in one hit, and it's by design, that way it's possible to manage large scale battles without having to track hit points for a hundred different guys. What makes one 0th level human tougher than the next is the AC. And that cues you in, that the baseline expectation for a less lethal game is to not get hit in the first place.
One complaint I often hear is 1st level magic-users have just one spell, one thing they can do, then they're done until they can rest and re-memorize. Well, if you have a 1st level fighter and get lucky on your hit point roll, you get to get hit just once before you become a one-hit-kill like everyone else. So the fighter only gets to do one thing--take one hit--then they can't use their class function without risking death. If you're a thief, with the probabilities for success at 1st level, let's say you come across 3 locks, you'll tend to be successful at picking 1 of them. That's your one thing.
I think the key is, you can't lean on your class functions. They can't be your first go to. That the game is actually a test of your imagination and your wits. And your class abilities at best might bail you out of a situation if you get in trouble.
Tenser was once a 1st level magic user who started knowing only Read Magic. He often crawled through dungeons in small parties, or even solo. You might ask yourself, what must have been true for that to be viable.
I tested the viability against Appendix A for the sake of trying to remain neutral with regard to DM style. The most dangerous thing on the Level I monster list are giant ants. It's possible to outrun most other monsters on the table. Elves are quick with a 12" movement, but at least it's possible to negotiate with elves. Giant ants are 2 HD and move at 15". However, per the evasion/pursuit rules, you can usually escape by throwing down some food. So just be sure to carry food when you enter the dungeon. Avoid engaging in combat unless you have to.
So I don't think it takes any conscious effort on the DM to make adventures that are more survivable. Although many may have to stop doing things that make the game harder to survive, like holding the expectation for it to be a slug-fest and constantly pushing PCs in that direction. It may take a major paradigm shift for players, however, to re-learn to play the game. How to practice prudence while still often having courage. Nothing will kill the game faster than players lacking courage.
That's my take on it anyway.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 08:30:35 AM
My 1E perspective on this is old school is NOT lethal. It's just fast. There's a reason AD&D uses 1-minute rounds. It's so you can get through very large battles without it taking up the whole session and you can get on with the adventure.
The baseline figure in 1E is the 0th level human. These generally die in one hit, and it's by design, that way it's possible to manage large scale battles without having to track hit points for a hundred different guys. What makes one 0th level human tougher than the next is the AC. And that cues you in, that the baseline expectation for a less lethal game is to not get hit in the first place.
One complaint I often hear is 1st level magic-users have just one spell, one thing they can do, then they're done until they can rest and re-memorize. Well, if you have a 1st level fighter and get lucky on your hit point roll, you get to get hit just once before you become a one-hit-kill like everyone else. So the fighter only gets to do one thing--take one hit--then they can't use their class function without risking death. If you're a thief, with the probabilities for success at 1st level, let's say you come across 3 locks, you'll tend to be successful at picking 1 of them. That's your one thing.
I think the key is, you can't lean on your class functions. They can't be your first go to. That the game is actually a test of your imagination and your wits. And your class abilities at best might bail you out of a situation if you get in trouble.
Tenser was once a 1st level magic user who started knowing only Read Magic. He often crawled through dungeons in small parties, or even solo. You might ask yourself, what must have been true for that to be viable.
I tested the viability against Appendix A for the sake of trying to remain neutral with regard to DM style. The most dangerous thing on the Level I monster list are giant ants. It's possible to outrun most other monsters on the table. Elves are quick with a 12" movement, but at least it's possible to negotiate with elves. Giant ants are 2 HD and move at 15". However, per the evasion/pursuit rules, you can usually escape by throwing down some food. So just be sure to carry food when you enter the dungeon. Avoid engaging in combat unless you have to.
So I don't think it takes any conscious effort on the DM to make adventures that are more survivable. Although many may have to stop doing things that make the game harder to survive, like holding the expectation for it to be a slug-fest and constantly pushing PCs in that direction. It may take a major paradigm shift for players, however, to re-learn to play the game. How to practice prudence while still often having courage. Nothing will kill the game faster than players lacking courage.
That's my take on it anyway.
One of the problems with this is that D&D and most TTRPGs in general are not about large scale battles, but individual confrontations, so this starts off with the wrong set of assumptions right from the start. I get that the game started out being derived from war games, but creating your own individual character and going into the micro level is about the complete opposite of looking at things from a bird's eye view while managing massive numbers of troops. Getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible so you can go to the next and keep a large scale battle moving is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters—not nameless "units", but CHARACTERS with hopes and aspirations, personalities and motivations for going out on adventure.
This approach to handling the game is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character taking part in an adventure, not a nameless disposable unit in a large scale battlefield. And it doesn't even work long term cuz eventually characters keep piling up HP as they go up in level, so that the game is in conflict with its own core set of assumptions when it comes to progression. First it gives everyone a pitiful amount of HP at level 0 or 1 (which have NO functional difference, by the way) so they can be discarded as quickly as possible, like units in a large scale battle that 99% of the time is not even gonna happen in a TTRPG, then it lets characters pile up an equal amount of HP every time they level up, which serves the opposite function.
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
I don't know that I'd say it's incoherent, but long years of observation and research have convinced me that the end for which people have generally been using (A)D&D since the explosion in popularity in the early 80s is
not the purpose for which the game was designed.
The game as designed is meant to be a mix of dungeon-delving, wargaming, and domain management in an open-ended, continuously evolving, multipolar world. The game as played has typically focused on the dungeon-delving or fantasy adventure centered around a fixed band of characters.
There are two erroneous conclusions I've seen drawn from this:
1. D&D is a badly designed game and not worth playing;
2. D&D is a good game, so everyone who wants something else out of it should either change their minds and embrace the Gygaxian method, or get out of the hobby altogether. :)
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.
An interesting alternative is offered by the new game
Against the Darkmaster.. You get a bunch of starting hit points based on kin (race), culture, and vocation (class). Then you might get more as you level up, or not, unless you buy development points in that area. So you could start with 85 hp (as a warrior) or 55 (as an animist) at 1st level, but you'll gain fewer in comparison to D&D as you level up. Of course they have lethal critical tables, but this still offers a bit more of a buffer at low levels. Once we play this game a few times, I'll have a better sense of how it works in practice.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
You mean Forge/GNS cultists, Storygamer fanatics and Pundits's Swine? They still spout this nonsense even now.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 02, 2022, 11:14:34 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
I don't know that I'd say it's incoherent, but long years of observation and research have convinced me that the end for which people have generally been using (A)D&D since the explosion in popularity in the early 80s is not the purpose for which the game was designed.
The game as designed is meant to be a mix of dungeon-delving, wargaming, and domain management in an open-ended, continuously evolving, multipolar world. The game as played has typically focused on the dungeon-delving or fantasy adventure centered around a fixed band of characters.
I think that the game as played has typically focused on that because that's the ultimate conclusion of what tabletop ROLE PLAYING games are really all about. They're about the characters (the people we "roleplay") and their adventures. Everything else is secondary, even to the extent that it might be a valid option or viable possibility.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 02, 2022, 11:14:34 AMThere are two erroneous conclusions I've seen drawn from this:
1. D&D is a badly designed game and not worth playing;
2. D&D is a good game, so everyone who wants something else out of it should either change their minds and embrace the Gygaxian method, or get out of the hobby altogether. :)
I prefer conclusion 3. Take what works and change the shit out of what doesn't!
Quote from: Persimmon on June 02, 2022, 11:37:47 AM
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 01, 2022, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on June 01, 2022, 02:22:16 PM
Another thing to keep in mind is that IIRC Arneson created HP because people got attached to their PCs.
Arneson apparently proposed about 10 HP for starting PCs with no additional HPs later on, but Pcs getting harder to hit.
http://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2021/10/arnesons-hit-points-for-characters.html
If you want PCs to be truly disposable, you might give each a single 'hit"...
So, it's shades of gray, not black and white.
And even the people that love old-school HP the most might agree that it is strange to imagine 1st level PCs being killed by house cats, or from a 10' fall...
Fixed HP at level 1 (perhaps based on your stats?) and being harder to hit as you went up in level would have been better. Also having skills, which apparently Arneson's version had. Instead we got no skills and a miserable amount of HP at level 1, then HP bloat as you reached mid to higher levels.
An interesting alternative is offered by the new game Against the Darkmaster.. You get a bunch of starting hit points based on kin (race), culture, and vocation (class). Then you might get more as you level up, or not, unless you buy development points in that area. So you could start with 85 hp (as a warrior) or 55 (as an animist) at 1st level, but you'll gain fewer in comparison to D&D as you level up. Of course they have lethal critical tables, but this still offers a bit more of a buffer at low levels. Once we play this game a few times, I'll have a better sense of how it works in practice.
That sounds like it could work, though, 85 HP at level 1 sounds a bit too high, but I suppose it depends on how the other options play out.
Quote from: Omega on June 02, 2022, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
You mean Forge/GNS cultists, Storygamer fanatics and Pundits's Swine? They still spout this nonsense even now.
Yeah, that's where I got that "D&D is incoherent" expression.
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
One of the problems with this is that D&D and most TTRPGs in general are not about large scale battles, but individual confrontations, so this starts off with the wrong set of assumptions right from the start.
As I mentioned n my post, I tested this against Appendix A. The dungeon encounter tables do not use the mass number appearing that the monster manual does. It is for your typical ragtag band of wandering psychopaths getting caught up in wacky adventures. I referenced Tenser crawling through dungeons solo and in small parties. I am clearly not assuming the things that you assume I'm assuming. And nothing I said rests upon the assumptions you assume I'm making.
QuoteI get that the game started out being derived from war games, but creating your own individual character and going into the micro level is about the complete opposite of looking at things from a bird's eye view while managing massive numbers of troops.
Who said anything about a bird's eye view?
QuoteGetting rid of individual units as quickly as possible
I never said anything about getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible. My post was refuting the presumed lethality that is the subject here. I'm making the case that those one-hit-kill 1st level characters and 0th level fighting men are actually tough SOBs.
I could slap together a combat system that gives the average person a 70% chance of hitting against the average defense rating. Because I've heard ~70% hit probability is somehow magically more fun. And then give the average person 10 hit points, where the average weapon does d6 damage. And if I do my math right, it's going to take about 4 rounds on average to take someone out.
Or I could just have the average guy die in one hit. But the average chance of hitting is 25% (which it is in 1E--0th level human vs AC 5). And I go and do the math, it comes out to about 4 rounds on average to take someone out. It's neither faster nor slower. It just saves me from having to track damage.
Quoteso you can go to the next and keep a large scale battle moving is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters—not nameless "units", but CHARACTERS with hopes and aspirations, personalities and motivations for going out on adventure.
I would say spending more time and effort than is necessary running a combat is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters with hopes, aspirations, personalities, and motivations for adventures that involve more than just fighting.
QuoteThis approach to handling the game is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character taking part in an adventure, not a nameless disposable unit in a large scale battlefield.
I would say that spending more time and effort than is necessary running a combat is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character that does something other than swing a sword on a battlefield.
QuoteAnd it doesn't even work long term cuz eventually characters keep piling up HP as they go up in level, so that the game is in conflict with its own core set of assumptions when it comes to progression. First it gives everyone a pitiful amount of HP at level 0 or 1 (which have NO functional difference, by the way) so they can be discarded as quickly as possible, like units in a large scale battle that 99% of the time is not even gonna happen in a TTRPG, then it lets characters pile up an equal amount of HP every time they level up, which serves the opposite function.
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
That's just straw-manning the purpose and function of the game mechanics.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 02, 2022, 11:14:34 AM
I don't know that I'd say it's incoherent, but long years of observation and research have convinced me that the end for which people have generally been using (A)D&D since the explosion in popularity in the early 80s is not the purpose for which the game was designed.
The game as designed is meant to be a mix of dungeon-delving, wargaming, and domain management in an open-ended, continuously evolving, multipolar world. The game as played has typically focused on the dungeon-delving or fantasy adventure centered around a fixed band of characters.
There are two erroneous conclusions I've seen drawn from this:
1. D&D is a badly designed game and not worth playing;
2. D&D is a good game, so everyone who wants something else out of it should either change their minds and embrace the Gygaxian method, or get out of the hobby altogether. :)
This is a much better understanding of 1E.
The way I put it--and by the way, this was going to be included in my previous post and cut for brevity since I've literally said this hundreds of times--1E was uniquely positioned as being the most popular RPG at a time that time was far enough along in the evolution of RPGs that there was a ton of previous experienced to draw upon but not so far along in the evolution of RPGs that we'd settled upon the one singular playstyle of the ragtag band of wandering psychopaths getting caught up in wacky adventures.
As a consequence, it supports a far broader array of play styles than other RPGs. That's not an incoherent thing. It's an accomplishment.
Not only is it not incoherent, it's genius. Because it doesn't just support a broad away of play styles. It fits them it all together in an over-riding system that allows campaigns to transition and evolve from one style to another seamlessly.
I've actually seen gamers question why the weapons the game incentivized D&D characters to use are such a mismatch for what was actually used. Spears and shit like that. And I point out, go ahead. Put together an army. Outfit it. The costs involved are going to lead you to outfight soldiers with "good enough" weapons. The weapon vs armor and weapon length & speed initiative considerations are going to come into play (they are a lot less significant, even if you use them, for small scale higher level characters). What you're incentivized to go with is going to be as reasonable a match for historical accuracy as you might be able to expect out of the game. For band of heroes type of play, like we're used to, the weapon selection more resembles what mythical heroes might use.
This allows you to play mythical heroes decked out as you might expect mythical heroes to be decked out in, while using a medieval or some other period setting as a backdrop and having the typical NPCs decked out in what you'd expect them to be decked out in, and in both cases, simultaneously, in the same campaign, both sets of choices make perfect sense.
From what I've seen, this is exactly what most peoples games aim at. 1E delivers it.
There's another thing going on here, a standard that D&D is held to that doesn't generally apply to other games: It's somehow supposed to be exactly what the critic wants, or it's designed wrong.
Maybe it's just not designed for you? The only really valid line it to criticize D&D (or any game) for not doing what it purports to do, or does it in a way that is sub optimal (e.g. overly complicated, obscure, drags in stuff irrelevant to its purpose, etc.). In order to do that, you must be able to separate what it is meant to do from what you want it to do, or even think it tries to do.
Now, naturally, there is an aspect of most critics to transition into designer or author mode--how I would have done it and why. Nothing wrong with that so far as it goes, but that is now a somewhat different subject. Sure, it is going to overlap with the critic role where the game is sub optimal to its intended purpose. And all this talk on a forum necessarily allows for the missing of tone that can blur line unintentionally. Which circles back to the big criticism--the design was "wrong", it's goals were chosen poorly. A much harder case to make, requiring the elaboration of a "philosophy" (to give the concept more weight than it perhaps deserves) of what games can and can't do, should and shouldn't try, and likely to lead to a sometimes useful discussion where real differences in approach in those having the discussion are made clear. If everyone can keep the different lines of criticism a little separate in their heads.
As for me, it's not my only line of "this game wasn't quite designed for me", but it's a big one: I like the approach of early D&D better than later D&D. However, I've always *wanted* combat to be a slightly bigger part of the game than it designed to be, encouraged a little more than it was intended. Not to the extent that WotC typically takes it, but edging slightly that way from what Gygax and company designed. While still retaining a lot of the rest of the early D&D goals. When we talk old school lethality, and what house rules might be, that's both how lethal it is used as intended and how lethal it is played with more combat than intended and what you might do to bridge that gap.
Reply
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 02, 2022, 10:01:04 AM
One of the problems with this is that D&D and most TTRPGs in general are not about large scale battles, but individual confrontations, so this starts off with the wrong set of assumptions right from the start.
As I mentioned n my post, I tested this against Appendix A. The dungeon encounter tables do not use the mass number appearing that the monster manual does. It is for your typical ragtag band of wandering psychopaths getting caught up in wacky adventures. I referenced Tenser crawling through dungeons solo and in small parties. I am clearly not assuming the things that you assume I'm assuming. And nothing I said rests upon the assumptions you assume I'm making.
I was talking about the game's design assumptions, not claiming that you assumed any of this yourself.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 10:18:06 PM
QuoteI get that the game started out being derived from war games, but creating your own individual character and going into the micro level is about the complete opposite of looking at things from a bird's eye view while managing massive numbers of troops.
Who said anything about a bird's eye view?
I did, in reference to the notion that the game's mechanics are intended for handling large scale battles. Looking at things from the perspective of managing a large scale battle would imply looking at things from "bird's eye view", as opposed to getting up close and into the details.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 10:18:06 PM
QuoteGetting rid of individual units as quickly as possible
I never said anything about getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible. My post was refuting the presumed lethality that is the subject here. I'm making the case that those one-hit-kill 1st level characters and 0th level fighting men are actually tough SOBs.
I could slap together a combat system that gives the average person a 70% chance of hitting against the average defense rating. Because I've heard ~70% hit probability is somehow magically more fun. And then give the average person 10 hit points, where the average weapon does d6 damage. And if I do my math right, it's going to take about 4 rounds on average to take someone out.
Or I could just have the average guy die in one hit. But the average chance of hitting is 25% (which it is in 1E--0th level human vs AC 5). And I go and do the math, it comes out to about 4 rounds on average to take someone out. It's neither faster nor slower. It just saves me from having to track damage.
The idea that the average guy dies in one hit is at odds with the notion that they're tough SOBs, and does imply "getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible" even if you don't explicitly use those words. That those level 0 guys would only be 25% likely to be hit is an artifact of wearing chainmail armor and being attacked by a level 0 or 1 character without bonuses specifically (neither of which is a guarantee), not an inherent ability they have.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 10:18:06 PM
Quoteso you can go to the next and keep a large scale battle moving is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters—not nameless "units", but CHARACTERS with hopes and aspirations, personalities and motivations for going out on adventure.
I would say spending more time and effort than is necessary running a combat is the wrong focus for a game centered around individual characters with hopes, aspirations, personalities, and motivations for adventures that involve more than just fighting.
QuoteThis approach to handling the game is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character taking part in an adventure, not a nameless disposable unit in a large scale battlefield.
I would say that spending more time and effort than is necessary running a combat is at odds with the idea of engaging in immersive play where you get to play the role of a character that does something other than swing a sword on a battlefield.
Except for when those individual characters get killed in one hit in their first battle in the first game session, cuz they're also one of the units that starts with low HP.
My point isn't about spending as much time and effort as possible in combat, but that PCs are also one of the units that would get dispatched quickly in combat (at least a lower levels) when using this kind of approach. And also that a large scale battle focus is the complete opposite of small skirmishes between individuals, which is what adventures of individual characters normally entails.
This isn't a large scale combat game, but a roleplaying game about action adventure. Large scale battlefield mechanics are more conductive to handling disposable units rather than central characters in a game about their daring exploits and adventures.
Quote from: Lunamancer on June 02, 2022, 10:18:06 PM
QuoteAnd it doesn't even work long term cuz eventually characters keep piling up HP as they go up in level, so that the game is in conflict with its own core set of assumptions when it comes to progression. First it gives everyone a pitiful amount of HP at level 0 or 1 (which have NO functional difference, by the way) so they can be discarded as quickly as possible, like units in a large scale battle that 99% of the time is not even gonna happen in a TTRPG, then it lets characters pile up an equal amount of HP every time they level up, which serves the opposite function.
Stuff like this is why some critics say that D&D incoherent—it can't keep up with what its focus is supposed to be.
That's just straw-manning the purpose and function of the game mechanics.
How?
Quote from: VisionStorm on June 03, 2022, 11:23:19 AM
I was talking about the game's design assumptions, not claiming that you assumed any of this yourself.
Well, you quoted me then wrote "the problem with this..." but fair enough. Clarification noted. But that just raises the question, what makes you think you know what the game's design assumptions are? I don't see anything in your posts that would indicate this.
QuoteI did, in reference to the notion that the game's mechanics are intended for handling large scale battles. Looking at things from the perspective of managing a large scale battle would imply looking at things from "bird's eye view", as opposed to getting up close and into the details.
I couldn't help but notice my car comes equipped with some nice soft seats. It certainly seems like they are intended for sitting. But I don't get to then port in all my assumptions about chairs and act as if staying in one place is the intention of the car. It doesn't follow logically. It's not true factually. And it doesn't match play experience. And there is a very simple alternative explanation that does fit experience. Like maybe when I travel, it's also nice to be comfortable.
QuoteThe idea that the average guy dies in one hit is at odds with the notion that they're tough SOBs,
The idea that the average guy dies from one hit that is fatal to the average person is a tautology and not indicative of anything about the guy or the world. Including not being counter-indicative that they're tough SOBs.
Quoteand does imply "getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible" even if you don't explicitly use those words.
Not only does it not imply anything about getting rid of individual units as quickly as possible, what mathed out demonstrates that that doesn't actually happen.
QuoteThat those level 0 guys would only be 25% likely to be hit is an artifact of wearing chainmail armor and being attacked by a level 0 or 1 character without bonuses specifically (neither of which is a guarantee), not an inherent ability they have.
If it's an artifact of wearing chainmail, why is it when I remove the chainmail, that the hit probability does not rise all the way up to the same 70% used in the "control group" I was comparing it to? There is an exchange of whiff factor for hits to kill while holding toughness constant. Among people who hate low level D&D, among the common criticisms are low number of hits you can take and high whiff factor. No one disputes these facts. Taken together, you cannot conclude anything about toughness without doing out the math.
QuoteExcept for when those individual characters get killed in one hit in their first battle in the first game session, cuz they're also one of the units that starts with low HP.
My point isn't about spending as much time and effort as possible in combat, but that PCs are also one of the units that would get dispatched quickly in combat (at least a lower levels) when using this kind of approach.
You don't get dispatched quickly if you don't get hit. If hits are rarer, you live longer.
QuoteAnd also that a large scale battle focus is the complete opposite of small skirmishes between individuals, which is what adventures of individual characters normally entails.
Which is both irrelevant and an assertion without evidence.
QuoteThis isn't a large scale combat game, but a roleplaying game about action adventure. Large scale battlefield mechanics are more conductive to handling disposable units rather than central characters in a game about their daring exploits and adventures.
Yeah, with hopes and dreams and all that other cornball stuff. Where I get to step into the shoes of a heroic character. Just as long as I don't want to become a king by my own hands, or do anything that involves too many people. Or whatever else you doesn't get your Real Roleplay stamp of approval.
Quote
How?
When you mis-characterize something in a way that makes it easy to argue against, if it's intentional, it's straw-manning. The specific language of "incoherent" comes from specific people who actually do have a bone to pick with D&D and so the intent is there. And I think the characterizations of both the design assumptions and the mechanics are pretty far off the mark.