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...