Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

Apparently DnD used to be more adversarial between players and DM.
How is that even possible when the DM can just say "You die."?

Early DnD was a lot more lethal in general, and honestly modern DnD PCs practically have plot armor.  Poisons were save-or-die no matter what the poison came from.  Challenge rating didn't exist and it was basically up to DM eyeballing or the monster's XP value or hit dice.  Non-fighters were generally worse at combat.  0 HP meant outright death where nowadays 0 is incapacitation with death only if the party outright abandons you.  Skills outside of thief skills were non-existent so interaction with the world was either improv or just attribute checks.  Outside of thief skills or magic, you kinda just had you-the-player's brain.  Level gaining was uneven between classes, and generally a lot slower; XP was gained much more from the loot you pulled out of a dungeon than actually killing the monsters.

On the flip side, genning characters is a lot faster in older editions, as there's not a million character options like 3.5 ed.

Some really old/classic dungeons were designed to be run as tournaments (like Tomb of Horrors).  These were often stupid lethal, with score basically being how far you got before you died.

Meanwhile modern dungeon modules are designed around Adventurer's League, which is a pop-in-and-play sort of deal for orphan players without a DM/playgroup.  You're expected to be able to carry over the same character between pick up games, so characters need to be able to survive the modules, and the modules need to be simple or easy enough to get through in a night.

[scriver]

Apparently DnD used to be more adversarial between players and DM.
How is that even possible when the DM can just say "You die."?

In Monopoly the bank can just claim all your money, but that's not what the game is

[Reelya]

It comes down to the DM. I've had more than one DM do a total party kill on the first encounter, then lecture us on being bad D&D players and if we'd been better we would have won the fight. One guy pointed out that we had a single Bless spell and a Magic Missile spell we could have use in the fight. As if the +1 from Bless and a single extra attack would have prevent TPK.

So that's that mentality at play, some DMs think their role is to set things up so you all die if you follow the plot-rails that they've layed out for you, and your job is to outwit the story.

[Iduno]

It comes down to the DM. I've had more than one DM do a total party kill on the first encounter, then lecture us on being bad D&D players and if we'd been better we would have won the fight. One guy pointed out that we had a single Bless spell and a Magic Missile spell we could have use in the fight. As if the +1 from Bless and a single extra attack would have prevent TPK.

So that's that mentality at play, some DMs think their role is to set things up so you all die if you follow the plot-rails that they've layed out for you, and your job is to outwit the story.

Yeah, about half of the GMs I've seen should quit the game and go write a book so nobody can interfere with their plot, and the characters can always guess the bullshit answer to the bullshit puzzle. Getting them out of the game would allow the game developers to make things a lot more interesting to the remaining customers. Sadly, many of the game developers have that same mindset.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd argue that running away from tough fights is a legitimate and smart tactic.  And higher level nasties shouldn't just stop existing entirely in the world just because the players are weak, realistically its possible to run into something above your punching power.

[Reelya]

Another issue just came to me. I had this one horror DM who did TPK on purpose because we ignored his plot rails (and he petulantly did it in the least fun way possible: some angry god just teleported us into a dungeon where we couldn't move or do anything, and tortured and killed everyone. So we didn't even get to have a battle or roll any dice, because that would have been too fun and we'd ruined his plot), and the other horror DMs who set the plot rails up to kills us if we followed them.

One guy had a room (literally the first room in the quest dungeon for a level 1 party) with like 3 goblins in it, we had 6 players, and decided we could take them, but the DM just kept pouring more goblins in as the first ones fell, they just didn't stop coming and the whole party went down. Oh right, I guess the true plot was that all the characters we'd just rolled up were meant to run away from literally the only place the DM had told us existed. I guess that's realistic: first level characters would be minced in a real goblin lair, but it's hardly a "game" at that point. It's the DM's job to create a story that's appropriate for the party, not to be lured in an ambushed by 4 times as many goblins as there are players. :/

EDIT: though I have an idea how to beat a DM like that in future. Make sure to buy some extra spears (they're cheap) or other weapons with a longer reach, then have everyone back into the doorway, if there's a door only one goblin can be standing in the doorway at once (only 5 foot wide), 3 fighters can stab into the doorway and other characters can stab with spears from 1 square back. If the tunnel is 10 foot, then two fighters with the best defense in front, two others with spears in back row attacking 2 goblins at a time.

[Iduno]

I'd argue that running away from tough fights is a legitimate and smart tactic.  And higher level nasties shouldn't just stop existing entirely in the world just because the players are weak, realistically its possible to run into something above your punching power.

That is a reasonable idea, but D&D also has a history of making that actually impossible to do. It's not as bad as AD&D where several monsters would hunt you down if you had a horse, to make sure you couldn't move faster than monsters, but it's still usually the case that monsters are usually faster than the players to make sure there is no way to escape unless the GM decides you're allowed to, which means nobody ever tries is for fear of being punished.

[Loud Whispers]

Another issue just came to me. I had this one horror DM who did TPK on purpose because we ignored his plot rails (and he petulantly did it in the least fun way possible: some angry god just teleported us into a dungeon where we couldn't move or do anything, and tortured and killed everyone. So we didn't even get to have a battle or roll any dice, because that would have been too fun and we'd ruined his plot), and the other horror DMs who set the plot rails up to kills us if we followed them.

One guy had a room (literally the first room in the quest dungeon for a level 1 party) with like 3 goblins in it, we had 6 players, and decided we could take them, but the DM just kept pouring more goblins in as the first ones fell, they just didn't stop coming and the whole party went down. Oh right, I guess the true plot was that all the characters we'd just rolled up were meant to run away from literally the only place the DM had told us existed. I guess that's realistic: first level characters would be minced in a real goblin lair, but it's hardly a "game" at that point. It's the DM's job to create a story that's appropriate for the party, not to be lured in an ambushed by 4 times as many goblins as there are players. :/

Agreed; I have seen this happen from DMs or players' ends, where players argue for example their new character doesn't fit into the story or have any motivation to follow the plot hook, but they knew beforehand what the plot was and don't see the logic of creating a character they know won't fit into the story. Or DMs who create a threat that will kill your party but don't telegraph that you need to run away, or even give a means of running away. Because yeah you're supposed to run away from a basilisk nest... But your legs have turned to stone so GG I guess

[Lord Shonus]

I'd argue that running away from tough fights is a legitimate and smart tactic.  And higher level nasties shouldn't just stop existing entirely in the world just because the players are weak, realistically its possible to run into something above your punching power.

That is a reasonable idea, but D&D also has a history of making that actually impossible to do. It's not as bad as AD&D where several monsters would hunt you down if you had a horse, to make sure you couldn't move faster than monsters, but it's still usually the case that monsters are usually faster than the players to make sure there is no way to escape unless the GM decides you're allowed to, which means nobody ever tries is for fear of being punished.

Part of the reason why early D&D had most of the experience come from gold (I forget if this was in Basic or was introduced in 1e AD&D) was to encourage players to avoid combat as much as possible. I've seen a lot of retroclone attempts (most went down as forums collapsed) where the sample games involved luring enemies away and essentially trying to pull Ocean's 11 type schemes to get to the gold.

[Iduno]

I'd argue that running away from tough fights is a legitimate and smart tactic.  And higher level nasties shouldn't just stop existing entirely in the world just because the players are weak, realistically its possible to run into something above your punching power.

That is a reasonable idea, but D&D also has a history of making that actually impossible to do. It's not as bad as AD&D where several monsters would hunt you down if you had a horse, to make sure you couldn't move faster than monsters, but it's still usually the case that monsters are usually faster than the players to make sure there is no way to escape unless the GM decides you're allowed to, which means nobody ever tries is for fear of being punished.

Part of the reason why early D&D had most of the experience come from gold (I forget if this was in Basic or was introduced in 1e AD&D) was to encourage players to avoid combat as much as possible. I've seen a lot of retroclone attempts (most went down as forums collapsed) where the sample games involved luring enemies away and essentially trying to pull Ocean's 11 type schemes to get to the gold.

Yeah, then it was patched to only give XP upon killing an enemy (avoided, trapped, otherwise non-lethally defeated enemies gave nothing) to "fix" that. I prefer the old method.

[MrRoboto75]

I'd argue that running away from tough fights is a legitimate and smart tactic.  And higher level nasties shouldn't just stop existing entirely in the world just because the players are weak, realistically its possible to run into something above your punching power.

That is a reasonable idea, but D&D also has a history of making that actually impossible to do. It's not as bad as AD&D where several monsters would hunt you down if you had a horse, to make sure you couldn't move faster than monsters, but it's still usually the case that monsters are usually faster than the players to make sure there is no way to escape unless the GM decides you're allowed to, which means nobody ever tries is for fear of being punished.

Early DnD had morale checks for monsters, so realistically it might not be impossible to convince a predator, for example, that there's easier food elsewhere.

Part of the reason why early D&D had most of the experience come from gold (I forget if this was in Basic or was introduced in 1e AD&D) was to encourage players to avoid combat as much as possible. I've seen a lot of retroclone attempts (most went down as forums collapsed) where the sample games involved luring enemies away and essentially trying to pull Ocean's 11 type schemes to get to the gold.

Yeah, then it was patched to only give XP upon killing an enemy (avoided, trapped, otherwise non-lethally defeated enemies gave nothing) to "fix" that. I prefer the old method.

I've considered house ruling 'defeating' monsters outside of outright killing them giving half their XP value.  If you come back later for the kill you could get the other half.

[Iduno]

Part of the reason why early D&D had most of the experience come from gold (I forget if this was in Basic or was introduced in 1e AD&D) was to encourage players to avoid combat as much as possible. I've seen a lot of retroclone attempts (most went down as forums collapsed) where the sample games involved luring enemies away and essentially trying to pull Ocean's 11 type schemes to get to the gold.

Yeah, then it was patched to only give XP upon killing an enemy (avoided, trapped, otherwise non-lethally defeated enemies gave nothing) to "fix" that. I prefer the old method.

I've considered house ruling 'defeating' monsters outside of outright killing them giving half their XP value.  If you come back later for the kill you could get the other half.

XP for kills also has the downside of reminding players that they are rewarded for killing everything, even if they shouldn't. I'm not sure only partially penalizing them for clever thinking is a huge improvement.

[McTraveller]

'tis why I like GURPS.  Character points are typically given for how well one plays the character, not for any particular success or failure in any activity.

[Iduno]

'tis why I like GURPS.  Character points are typically given for how well one plays the character, not for any particular success or failure in any activity.

Yeah, most modern (after 1980) games do that. Major improvement.

[pisskop]

Decided to do an instacart thing on my day off.

My first job ever, Im sent to Stew Lenord's, a locally bitchin' store.  Its actually quite good....

I get back to my car after talking to the client some about their stuff via the sms the app has.  It sends me to an address....  The wrong town, but right address.

A woman answers her door when I knock.  She's wearing the skimpiest thing ever.  Not lingerie, but PJs that are basic.  Her tits are flopping out.

So having a fun conversation about the groceries with floppin' tits gal, that was fun.  Eventually we sort the mess out, but I was stared at by 4 eyes today.