General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Yes, XP for treasure, plus often really out-of-whack challenges. Monsters were often placed on dungeons levels by hit die, not overall threat.
The AD&D charts used XP value, rather than HD. However, I think that "out-of-whack" challenges (i.e. tougher monsters) are usually encountered because of the "choose-your-own-path" factor. For example, when the players encounter really tough monsters in my game, it's usually because they've chosen to go to a deeper level, or a more dangerous wilderness area, or whatever. (My dungeon has a lot of places to go up and down, so it's very easy and tempting for the PCs to dip down lower in search of bigger treasure, or just to see what's there...)
Quote:
Some campaigns had you start at 1st level if you lost a character, no matter what the rest of the party was, as well, which could make it really hard to catch up if a character took a dirt nap.
I find that a low-level PC with a higher-level party tends to advance very quickly because the XP awards are larger than he'd normally receive. That's assuming he survives, of course, but I don't think that's as rare as one might expect. I think that mixed-level adventuring parties are viable (and were even assumed -- note the levels of the characters in the 1e DMG's "Example of Melee" on pg 71).
__________________ "You want to play "Semantics and Lawyers"? Go ahead. We'll be busy kickin' ass and chewing Stygian Black Lotus- the best!" - Predavolk
It really depends on how you approach the game. If approached as a roleplaying game why kill anything and everything you can unless the entire party is playing the role of mentally unstable murderers?
There is nothing wrong with doing this and it certainly scratches that escapism itch but eventually playing a different role just for the sake of change has some appeal.
If the PC's are played as people, even heroic people, then throwing themselves into life or death combat as a first option doesn't make much sense. Being a hero in a living lifelike world means more than just killing everything and looting. If the PC's make a name for themselves then others are going to be inspired by thier actions and perhaps try and emulate them. Do the PC's want to teach the children of thier world that slaughter and plunder are the best ways to solve problems?
If the game is approached as a tactical boardgame then its easy to see why a heavy combat style is preferred. If combat resolution is what everyone wants then go for it. Roll the dice, kill the monsters and take thier stuff.
A few posts recently have touched upon a playstyle in older editions of D&D where you tried to avoid combat.
This is utterly opposed to how I played AD&D back in the day: the game was about combat.
Yes, when I first read this, I thought it was some kind of joke.
Then I saw the replies...and sure, between treasure as xp and low starting hps, it made a little more sense, I guess.
But still, for a long time old school=hack and slash. And the old schoolers where proud of it! None of this hand holding, story telling, sneaking around, running away, talk to the monsters crap for them.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic; Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then click; You can use “Earth” as a D&D setting; Origins of The Rouse; (look for it) The Rouse responds; (look for it) One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
I'm pretty convinced that everyone else out there games at least roughly the same way I do.
That's a very odd thing to believe. Especially since this belief requires also believing that many people here on EN World are liars. You should probably stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerricB
So, when I hear that in earlier editions you needed to avoid combat, I really wonder why my experience was so different.
Most of my games were more like what you describe, but not all of them. There are mysteries that spend entire gaming sessions essentially roleplaying Gather Information, a couple political intrigues, etc. And I've written and run a number of quests where there was a BBEG but no encounters before that. The entire quest was just figuring out who the BBEG was, where he laired, and what he weakness was (then acquiring the special weapon) so that you could actually win the big fight.
I can definitely see how someone who used a different mix of the above could have a largely non-combat campaign.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
That's a very odd thing to believe. Especially since this belief requires also believing that many people here on EN World are liars. You should probably stop.
Not liars, just wrong.
I hear people go on and on about how THEY don't play in combat heavy smash-em-up games, THEY play in mature games that avoid combat where it isn't necessary, etc, etc, etc. Then they bemoan how 4e doesn't support the sort of game they like.
Then I read their session reports, or their descriptions of their games, and I think, "Wait, that sounds just like my game. And I'm doing that in 4e, and I'm not doing anything weird with the rules. I'm just running the game."
So I conclude that they're just being crotchety and old, and that they've got a vague feeling that "kids these days" are munchkins. So they take it out on anything new and anyone young.
The big difference here is there is no expectation that anything you run into is pre-determined as beatable. You think and act just as you would if you were there dressed in that armor, carrying that sword, having had prepared those spells. There are no arrows hovering in the air on where we are to go or what we are to do. Nor are there bright red lines drawn on the ground saying "you're leaving Level 1 area" "entering level 5 area". If we're not cognizant of our surroundings and the thinking twice about the repercussions of our actions (and sometimes just bad luck - not dice related), we run into "really bad things" like dragons. Of course, we also slaughter kobolds and goblins and zombies without thinking too hard and sometimes getting in trouble for it. Mostly though those fights are just mop ups.
I run things in a somewhat similar fashion; I make a point of including encounters with critters that are way too tough for the PCs, and other encounters with critters that the PCs can walk right over. (If the PCs pick a fight in the latter case, I don't even bother to play out the battle; I simply announce, "Okay, you crush them. They're all dead. What are you doing next?")
However, I do put some thought into the tough encounters in order to avoid "unfair" TPKs - which is to say, TPKs that the party has no reasonable way to foresee and avoid. Generally, I try for one of two things with a "too big for you" encounter; either a) it's obviously something bigger than the party can handle, or b) it's something that won't kill the PCs outright if they attack it. And in either case, I make sure to give them the option to avoid combat.
An example of type a) would be when my 4th-level PCs were going through a dungeon under a ruined dwarven citadel, and decided to investigate the tunnel that led to the Underdark. They found a cave with a hydra in it; a fortified outpost manned by troglodytes (and I made sure to let them know that troglodytes do not build fortifications, but are commonly used as slaves by more powerful races, such as drow and illithid, who do); and a deep, deep tunnel leading to a pit surrounded by eight lich vestiges chanting. They took the hint and retreated. If they had tried to pick a fight down there, I would have let natural selection take its course.
An example of type b) would be when the same party at 3rd level ran into an ogre named Throog. Throog was a herdsman who kept reindeer, only his reindeer kept dying and he was looking into alternative herd animals. As soon as he saw the party, he announced that they were his new herd. Talking or tricking their way out of this situation was easy, since Throog was not intended to pose a difficult challenge - he was there for fun and color. However, I did consider that they might decide to pick a fight, since a single ogre was not clearly out of their league. Throog was an 8th-level solo, so he would have wiped the floor with them at the time; however, because they were his "herd" and a good herdsman cares for his animals, he would have stopped to make Heal checks and fix them up afterward.
Of course, there is also situation c), where the party has to find a way to beat enemies who are obviously way out of their weight class for a straight-up fight. I haven't done a lot with this lately, but I have in previous campaigns, and I'm thinking about some possibilities...
__________________ Have you ever known a person who always behaved exactly the way you expected? Real people don't stay in character.
Last edited by Dausuul; 9th October 2008 at 04:00 PM..
It's interesting that you assume the goal of all killing is to loot corpses.
Have your PCs never needed to kill to achieve a story goal?
Sure. Don't confuse needing to kill with choosing killing as the first and only option.
If there is a goal to achieve and someone or something is willing to fight to the death to keep the PC's from reaching that goal then so be it.
If there are creatures that are in the PC's way but don't feel stongly enough about thier goal to die defending it then there is room for negotiation. Less intelligent, belligerent humanoids (like the PC's sometimes) might be inclined to threaten or react violently to any intrusion of course.
The thing to remember is that NPC's and monsters have motivations that don't always include trying to kill or harm the PC's. If they don't then the PC's are indeed being very reasonable in killing anything and everything that crosses thier path, its simple survival.
Please do not continue to insinuate that those who don't agree with you are somehow mentally impaired. That is rude in the extreme, and will not be tolerated.
Everyone - we expect you to show some respect for opinions other than your own. If you cannot do that, we expect you to hold your post until you can.
Sure. Don't confuse needing to kill with choosing killing as the first and only option.
If there is a goal to achieve and someone or something is willing to fight to the death to keep the PC's from reaching that goal then so be it.
If there are creatures that are in the PC's way but don't feel stongly enough about thier goal to die defending it then there is room for negotiation. Less intelligent, belligerent humanoids (like the PC's sometimes) might be inclined to threaten or react violently to any intrusion of course.
The thing to remember is that NPC's and monsters have motivations that don't always include trying to kill or harm the PC's. If they don't then the PC's are indeed being very reasonable in killing anything and everything that crosses thier path, its simple survival.
Of course.
You give the impression that you believe other people don't do things this way.
Do you really believe the kinds of people who will spend their time posting here are the type who run games entirely to "Roll the dice, kill the monsters and take thier stuff" as you put it?
Because you're coming across as terribly condescending.
My original group tended heavily toward rangers and rogues with most wizards being coniving SOBs. Even the "spill their guts" fighters tended to be the gritty, tactically minded sort that didn't really cotton to a fair fight. Sure, there were wandering monsters and unavoidable guards to dispatch, but it was mostly about fighting on our terms, not theirs.
If the goal was to confront the Duke and probably end his reign, you didn't carve your way through the guards (they might actually be loyal to the seat, not the man, and you'd need people to staff your new realm). You did the minimum engagement necessary to acheive your goal.
I think part of that was because of what's now termed the 15 minute day. You knew you didn't have the resources to kill everyone and still stand up to the kahuna. Camping wasn't always an option and leaving and coming back only served to alert them.
If you were in an orc den or some other traditional dungeon setting, you might come back and clean up, but we tended to run a lot more above ground adventures. In dungeon settings, though, the wandering monsters tended to discourage picking fights with everything.
You give the impression that you believe other people don't do things this way.
Do you really believe the kinds of people who will spend their time posting here are the type who run games entirely to "Roll the dice, kill the monsters and take thier stuff" as you put it?
Because you're coming across as terribly condescending.
Not all all. I do believe that it exactly that type of game that WOTC is marketing 4E as, not what everyone may actually be playing.
When I was younger and playing BECM and 1e, a lot of it was about combat, sure. But then that's more to do with the fact that immersive roleplaying for a 13 year old is not necessary something that appeals to them. Combat was more fun.
On the other hand, as I grew older, you bounce you head against the idea that you're playing a character. And that character is not about killing things and taking their stuff. That character is about surviving. If you think about it that way, many character would want to avoid combat simply because they then get to live another day. Granted that's not always true, but most of the characters I played were like that.
It's a playstyle difference and a character perspective difference.
I've seen people here mention that one of the reasons their earlier games didn't focus on combat was because they gained the majority of their xp from treasure.
I've never been in a game that game xp for treasure. I honestly thought using that was about as common as using the weapon vs. AC chart (which is to say vanishingly rare). Very interesting.
It might also explain why I think nothing of spending months at the same level, even when we played daily and/or marathon sessions in college and during summer breaks. The 3e and 4e philosophy of "completing" your advancement in 12-18 months is just weird.
In fact, in the current edition, it is ridiculous to stay out of combat, because combat is pretty much all there is. 4e makes a great gods'-eye-view tactical miniatures game -- you have hordes of options on how to strike various targets, how to outmaneuver them, how to play the odds of hits points versus damage, etc. If you like combat, D&D is for you.
Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?
__________________ Jack, you have debauched my sloth.
"He who lives by the sword -- when something else will work better -- sooner or later dies by the sword."
Quote:
In fact, in the current edition, it is ridiculous to stay out of combat, because combat is pretty much all there is. 4e makes a great gods'-eye-view tactical miniatures game -- you have hordes of options on how to strike various targets, how to outmaneuver them, how to play the odds of hits points versus damage, etc. If you like combat, D&D is for you.
Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?
And non-intuitive (in terms of what game mechanics mean within the game world itself) combat at that. One of the many reasons I avoid 4e.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Thus staying out of combat in 4e is probably a silly concept. The game is utterly designed around combat, so why bother?
Because sometimes it's more fun to talk or sneak or otherwise bamboozle opponents than to do murder to them? There's still plenty of support for that in 4e.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I remember avoiding combat in 1E games but that's because of the wandering monster table. Seriously, that table could spit out some monsters that you had no right being in the same area.....
I remember avoiding combat in 1E games but that's because of the wandering monster table. Seriously, that table could spit out some monsters that you had no right being in the same area.....
By the book, OD&D and 1e characters should be levelling at least pre-teen level at around the same pace as 3e/4e characters.
2e's levelling pace was actually an abnormality when you look at the RAW over the past 30 years....
That analyis assumes a "monsters are there to be fought and treasures to be found" mentality that, while in keeping with 3e/4e, was not the case with earlier editions.
If, on one hand, you accept the complaints that earlier edition adventures hid treasures in places where they would almost never be found, then it doesn't follow that you should expect that the potential gp value of treasure in a module was anything like the actual gp (and hence XP) value the PCs would gain.
(In a 3e game, I had PCs find a gold comb that was the size of an adult human. Sure, that was a lot of gold, but because of its sheer weight and bulkiness, they abandoned it where it was found! This sort of "challenge the player" puzzle appeared a lot in earlier edition adventures.)
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
That analyis assumes a "monsters are there to be fought and treasures to be found" mentality that, while in keeping with 3e/4e, was not the case with earlier editions.
RC
Heh...Another one that disbelieves that by RAW, OD&D and 1E were supposed to be levelling as fast as 3e/4e.
If you read the whole thread, he points out one interesting fact that if you actually follow the progresson, you'll end up at the appropriate level you were SUPOOSED to be for the follow-up adventure.
Quaqoth pretty much convincingly IMO proved people are misremembering 1e or were screwing up with the treasure allocation...
Killing monsters wasn't the goal of 1e/OD&D. Jacking their loot however, THAT was the goal of 1e/OD&D.
4E has rituals, use them, they're magic;
Want to see the greatest thing you will ever see? then 
You can use “Earth” as a D&D 
The Rouse 
One can appreciate both old and new D&D.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
