You guys do know that failure and death are not synonymous right?
Thanks for pointing that out.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You guys do know that failure and death are not synonymous right?
A lot of people are houseruling this annoying situation by inflicting Exhaustion when PCs hit 0 hit points to simulate wounds.That said, the specific rules about 'going down' and dying (or not) do clash with my sense of how damage and recovery should work. I find the idea of a PC literally dying just seconds ago suddenly jumping up from the ground and being able to use all his abilities just because of the dice a little too convenient.
Likewise the idea that you can literally nearly die a few times during a day, but 8 hours of sleep will make you good as new the next day.
Bah, that's rookie shit; and if you're playing the sort of Tiefling that wants to be judged for themselves rather than their species, why would you sell your soul and prove everyone right? One of my favourite things about (One of) my tiefling paladin(s) was getting to say "it was my gran that fucked the demon, not me. You asshole" when someone started giving me shit, and also being physically imposing enough to get them to back off.Lemme guess: a tiefling warlock?
This is why I prefer some of the other OSR games over straight B/X. You keep the spirit but get to play a with a rationalized and update set of mechanics. Not that I dislike B/X, I like it a lot, but it does have some idiosyncrasies that I can happily live without.
It's not that there's anything wrong with it if you can get what you want out of it. It's just that I'm not sure it's that easy to actually get that out of D&D - especially if you're also trying to do all the traditional D&D stuff at the same time.
I mean for all it's faults, this is the kind of the thing the Forge recognised 20 years ago and it's what inspired Ron Edwards to write Sorcerer - the realisation that traditional rpg games were kind of shit at delivering character centred stories that felt like narrative arcs ( Unless the GM really burns themselves out trying).
A lot of people are houseruling this annoying situation by inflicting Exhaustion when PCs hit 0 hit points to simulate wounds.
The assumptions of bog-standard D&D have changed over all these years. It was inevitable.
The problems I have with D&D are the assumptions players bring to the table simply because content exists, they assume all that content exists in whatever setting they choose to sit down at the table and play in. I see very little contextualization of many of the elements now common to "D&D".
And actually, before that, Unearthed Arcana had this complaint a LOT.Yup, the 2E splat books presented exactly the same problem, for sure.
Yeah, because the UA classes were fucking badass. I had a moment of teenage climax the first time I read the Barbarian class.And actually, before that, Unearthed Arcana had this complaint a LOT.
We were very different teenagers. I always wanted to play Kender and Gully Dwarves and anything else under the "really fucking annoying" category. (I even played a Kid in Star Wars).Yeah, because the UA classes were fucking badass. I had a moment of teenage climax the first time I read the Barbarian class.
Not just 2E. If you wanted a blizzard of "snowflake" option in the '80s, you just had to play BECMI.That complaint goes back years. I certainly remember GMs complaining that their players assumed that anything in Dragon should automatically be allowed in games. And that really exploded with the 2e splatbooks. So at the very least, I think the idea we see in some quarters that this is all an issue of "these damn kids, with their 5e and their Critical Roles" is rather revisionist.
I think every other character I made up during my teens was essentially Snake Eyes, alternating with surly dwarven fighters.We were very different teenagers. I always wanted to play Kender and Gully Dwarves and anything else under the "really fucking annoying" category. (I even played a Kid in Star Wars).
I suspect my GM hated me way more than yours did.
You guys do know that failure and death are not synonymous right?
This is the thing that I don't get when people are like "oh if they can't die there is no challenge/consequences" crowd.
Ever have a character fail to save someone? Or have a villain get off scot-free after having done something terrible because the players couldn't get the evidence to make charges stick?
The truth is, death is IMO, the most boring form of failure, because that is the end of interesting things happening. (It's actually more interesting for the OTHER characters when a character dies. (barring resurrection shenanigans, but then again, resurrection shenanigans kind of go against the "back in my day we played D&D uphill both ways in the snow" attitude).
Sure! tastes change.That complaint goes back years. I certainly remember GMs complaining that their players assumed that anything in Dragon should automatically be allowed in games. And that really exploded with the 2e splatbooks. So at the very least, I think the idea we see in some quarters that this is all an issue of "these damn kids, with their 5e and their Critical Roles" is rather revisionist.
This is my larger point. 5e embraces this assumption that literally all of the sentient races, regardless of cultural background all hang out in Waterdeep (or anywhere else) completely free of Realms historical and cultural context. Duergar and Bugbears and **INTELLECT Devourers** running around the streets? Gee... what could possibly go wrong?So I'm running the 5e Waterdeep Dragon Heist. I'm going to spoiler this for anyone who might want to not see it.
There are encounters that happen in broad daylight involving druegar, kobolds(disguised as kids),Bugbears, intellect devourers, kenji and a seemingly endless supply of Gazers constantly following the part day and night.
I'm not saying your wrong but the impression the module has given me is that it is a very cosmopolitan city where you would expect a little of anything to be wandering about. So the writers could be sloppy(maybe), I could be misunderstanding what I'm reading (likely), the might have retconed it to be more diverse in 5e(seems reasonable all things considered) or something else.
You're conflating Difficulty with Interesting.
One of the great fallacies certain people keep espousing is that Consequences are worse than Death! Nope. Not to us, and especially not to you. For people who Roleplay by adding things like Storytelling/Authorship to it, nothing is worse than Death. It ends that characters story. What's the old cliche about writers? They come up with interesting people they love and then put them through hell? Consequences are the meat and drink of all Narrative RPGs, which is why their mechanics contain them built in to nearly every choice or roll. Doing terrible things to your character is what brings the Drama of dealing with those terrible things. With Character Death, that all stops. It's the ultimate sanction for your Character, and for you.
Some people accept that ultimate sanction as a challenge, and having that axe ready to fall is part of the fun, because it is the ultimate consequence (even Raise Dead and Resurrection once had limitations, and could become mini-campaigns unto themselves).
Other people don't accept that ultimate sanction and tie themselves in knots trying to convince themselves and others that methods which increase the Drama and keep the Story going are worse than Death.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wish-fulfillment. I completely agree with you on that.The thing that gets me is like... ok so what if someone wants to tell stories of wish fulfilment? Or stories where they are strong and powerful?
Like, this is a hobby for fun. It ain't that deep. If they are having fun, and their table is having fun, they are doing it right.
I know why it's turned this way - post-modern views that all cultures have value etc. (but secretly the implication are they're all the same) - this is ahistorical to the setting and to reality. Now I'm not saying you couldn't have these things on the streets of Waterdeep - but contextually it would *not* be normal.
Once I was a clerical phase-spider, homosexual with a oral fixation, and masochistic
So pop quiz
Is from when?
It from Alarums & Excursions #12 published in 1975. Found in the Elusive Shift on Page 92. View attachment 25645
Folks need to the Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson. It was just released and it documents (not recounts) the transition after D&D was released when folks were grappling with "what is roleplaying?" And its effectively illustrates the diversity of approaches that was present from the beginning. Including settings that were were an improbable kaleidoscope of cultures and races
Rob's Note: I am not doing this to pick on you. I just got done reading this when I came across your post and comment about post-modern views in the present day.
Update
A screenshot from the original in A&E #12 If you have the PDF from Lee Gold it is on page #135
View attachment 25646
Further details
View attachment 25647
Lots of people like lots of things that I have no direct knowledge of. Historically, on this site and others, that argument is always put forth by people who play and enjoy narrative RPGs.That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Lots of players who like some story in their game are also just fine with character death. Your us and them approach to these conversations isn't always super helpful, you get that right?
Except the person I was responding to was saying victory only matters if failure is possible.
...
I was disagreeing with the idea that characters less likely to die has anything to do with the idea that characters can't fail.
My point is that there is lots of room in the middle. Some people enjoy both old school and narrative games. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own likes and dislikes, of course you should. I just don't get why you feel the need to be so unrelentingly hostile about it. Especially when you don't seem have much tolerance for being twitted about that ongoing facet of your posting. Anyway, I'm not here to try and change your posts (like you'd let me) I'm just a little bemused by your vitriol sometimes. I have my own set of anti-social quirks online, so, please, don't take that as actual criticism. I just have trouble parsing your posts sometimes.Lots of people like lots of things that I have no direct knowledge of. Historically, on this site and others, that argument is always put forth by people who play and enjoy narrative RPGs.
I could make some statements and ask you if it most likely came from...
Group 1. Me, Rob, Tenbones, Vulmea, etc.
Group 2. Silva, Norton, Ladybird, etc. (all of which have made that argument on multiple occasions)
...and based on the statement, you could pick which group it came from 99% of the time.
People do Us and Them all the time.
Grognards is a Them.
Usual Suspects is a Them.
Etc.
Yeah, Tenbones is right, Rob. As I’ve already said, everyone has done Gonzo Heavy Metal campaigns, and everyone has done one offs. That’s different than Tieflings walking down Main Street. In Greyhawk, you might expect to see Tieflings in Iuz, the Horned Society, The Great Kingdom, The Pomarj, etc. but in most places where humans dwell, they would be Kill On Sight. The same with the Forgotten Realms. The idea that Balrog characters are normal is just ludicrous on it’s face.So pop quiz
Is from when?
It from Alarums & Excursions #12 published in 1975. Found in the Elusive Shift on Page 92. View attachment 25645
Folks need to the Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson. It was just released and it documents (not recounts) the transition after D&D was released when folks were grappling with "what is roleplaying?" And its effectively illustrates the diversity of approaches that was present from the beginning. Including settings that were were an improbable kaleidoscope of cultures and races
Rob's Note: I am not doing this to pick on you. I just got done reading this when I came across your post and comment about post-modern views in the present day.
Update
A screenshot from the original in A&E #12 If you have the PDF from Lee Gold it is on page #135
View attachment 25646
Further details
View attachment 25647
You’re the first “narrative guy” on this site that hasn’t put forth the idea that Consequences are worse than Death. For all I know, every other person the world playing narrative games might be saying “Of course Death is the worst failure state (unless it’s a powerful and dramatic end chosen by the character).” I just haven’t seen that here.My point is that there is lots of room in the middle. Some people enjoy both old school and narrative games. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your own likes and dislikes, of course you should. I just don't get why you feel the need to be so unrelentingly hostile about it. Especially when you don't seem have much tolerance for being twitted about that ongoing facet of your posting. Anyway, I'm not here to try and change your posts (like you'd let me) I'm just a little bemused by your vitriol sometimes. I have my own set of anti-social quirks online, so, please, don't take that as actual criticism. I just have trouble parsing your posts sometimes.
Take the character death example you posted above. That's not an issue that splits evenly along the narrative/old school fault line. Lots of people who enjoy more narrative play accept that death is the last stop on that train, and is not only possible, but can indeed be the perfect ending to a character arc. How does that reconcile with your attempt to paint the whole set of narrative gamers as enormous poofs who can't handle even the possibility of a character dying? You and I both know that ain't true, so why say it? IDK.
Anyone else remember the complaints about "Monty Haul" DMs back in the day?
Huh. That's weird. Narrative play should generally be driven by situations that engender choices and consequences that matter to the character (yup, a huge generalization, but broadly true). IMO the only teleos there is that death, yours or someone else's, needs to be on the table in order to make the rest of the choices you make mean something. Playing otherwise would feel like playing poker at the kiddie table to me. Maybe you and I at least, are more in agreement here than we first thought.You’re the first “narrative guy” on this site that hasn’t put forth the idea that Consequences are worse than Death. For all I know, every other person the world playing narrative games might be saying “Of course Death is the worst failure state (unless it’s a powerful and dramatic end chosen by the character).” I just haven’t seen that here.
No it not a singular example but you are better off reading the Elusive Shift by Jon Peterson and following his references than taking my word for it. He had done the work going through the various documentation to pieces together the picture of what happened back then.Are you going to really tell me this singular example is representative of the history of D&D and fantasy roleplaying writ large?
Yes but what more important what is published or what people do at home? Did the published work represent the normal state of play in an era whether it is today or back in the day? Is the state of published work a reflection of the times or rather a reflection of how the writing staff liked to play?I've already stated quite clearly that for homebrewed games - go nuts. But for the established settings used by D&D in specific, this kind of play is not implied as normal until fairly recently.
My point of debate whether it is a result of a post-modern shift. I am contending it there all along. It just happened that in this generation it got published by the IP holder of D&D. It not a result of a post-modern shift. It a result of people who liked this form of tabletop roleplaying finally being on the staff and getting to publish what they like.I can cite all kinds of silly stuff that's appeared in my games, that doesn't mean it's considered the normal assumptions of any particular setting.
You’re the first “narrative guy” on this site that hasn’t put forth the idea that Consequences are worse than Death. For all I know, every other person the world playing narrative games might be saying “Of course Death is the worst failure state (unless it’s a powerful and dramatic end chosen by the character).” I just haven’t seen that here.
...which is funny, because I actually like Rob and Vulmea's posts, and I have a lot of time for their points of view even when I don't necessarily agree with them, because they're able to express their opinions without going into tribal mentality; they actually engage with the poster and the discussion, rather than attributing negative traits to folk based on rough similarities to folks who they still have chips on their shoulder about.Lots of people like lots of things that I have no direct knowledge of. Historically, on this site and others, that argument is always put forth by people who play and enjoy narrative RPGs.
I could make some statements and ask you if it most likely came from...
Group 1. Me, Rob, Tenbones, Vulmea, etc.
Group 2. Silva, Norton, Ladybird, etc. (all of which have made that argument on multiple occasions)
...and based on the statement, you could pick which group it came from 99% of the time.
People do Us and Them all the time.
Grognards is a Them.
Usual Suspects is a Them.
Etc.
Yeah, Tenbones is right, Rob. As I’ve already said, everyone has done Gonzo Heavy Metal campaigns, and everyone has done one offs. That’s different than Tieflings walking down Main Street. In Greyhawk, you might expect to see Tieflings in Iuz, the Horned Society, The Great Kingdom, The Pomarj, etc. but in most places where humans dwell, they would be Kill On Sight. The same with the Forgotten Realms. The idea that Balrog characters are normal is just ludicrous on it’s face.
Thanks for that. I love the classes in the Old Gazeteers especially some of the tree folk ones. Some funny mechanics in them. Some sort of Rules Cyclopedia/BECMI classes volume could be great for OSE.I already posted that list of BECMI classes
If Gronan ever actually did say Balrog PCs were normal, I would take his word on that. But since he’s never said anything of the sort, I can’t take his word on it, can I?We should probably separate the very early games from the published settings. I think it's very plausible that Balrogs were normal in Gygax's games and without good reason to believe otherwise am inclined to take Gronan as the voice of authority on that.
So the implied setting in OD&D at least I think was pretty gonzo. The question is more when that changed. (Red box at least, but maybe earlier).