D&D 5E I played a game of Classic D&D.

[iserith]

The issue then becomes, what happens if their informed decision is to go ahead anyway? That's where the "unfairness" might come in for some players.

Maybe but they'd be wrong.

It's not really an informed decision if the outcome is a TPK if they decide in the opposite direction that the DM expected them to. In other words, by giving them the warning, the DM is trying to remove his own culpability in presenting the "almost impossible" challenge by pushing the responsibility of it to the decision making of the players and ignoring the fact that he is the one who created the situation in the first place.

He is still partially responsible for the TPK. And if he gives warnings that more or less force the players to abandon the idea of going to that encounter, he isn't REALLY giving them a decision. He's kind of railroading the adventure away from that encounter under the fake disguise of allowing the players to decide. Too strong of a warning, the players aren't really getting to decide. Too weak of a warning (or no warning at all), and the DM is setting the group up for a potential TPK.

The responsibility is entirely on the players in this case. They knew the deadliness of the peril (assuming the DM did a good job). They chose to boldly confront it. They lost.

It's not "railroading" to give the players information so they can make choices in the context of the game. If I say "touching the lava kills you," am I railroading you because you decide you don't want to touch the lava? Nope.

It's not a binary choice either - to confront the deadly peril or not. There's at least one other option: Confront the deadly peril at some other time after preparing for it. Getting back to the original topic, that is something that I believe was common to games played with older editions. Gathering info on the threat, preparing in a way that gives you an advantage you didn't have before, and then, perhaps with some luck, seizing victory from the jaws of certain defeat.

Railroading? Fudging? "Metagaming?" C'mon, man, seriously.

 

[Iry]

1e bard, yes, but not paladin. All you had to do was have a 17 CHA. There was no planning our building for a paladin. And the bard clearly was a Frankenstein afterthought. One reason why it was at the very end of the PHB and not with the rest of the classes. I don't think I even knew anyone who played a bard in 1e, and that covers 1e being my favorite edition from 1981 to 2012. Although in fairness, I did see a bard when 2e came out and it was it's own class from the get go. But I don't recall anyone every playing a 1e bard.

I think you're right. Looking back on it, my DM from back then (before I ever became a DM) used a houserule to make Paladins the same as Bards. But we did have a couple of bards over the years.

Of course, everyone I know also used Skills and Powers (in 2E) the moment those books came out. So there was a lot of 'Builds' back then as well, even though they were almost all stuff you plotted out at character creation instead of as you leveled.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[KarinsDad]

The responsibility is entirely on the players in this case. They knew the deadliness of the peril (assuming the DM did a good job). They chose to boldly confront it. They lost.

Again, if that is the case, the DM is not really giving them a decision. He is deciding for them and couching it in a way so that they cannot make that decision (especially if they know that the DM is just going to TPK them if they make that decision).

It's not a binary choice either - to confront the deadly peril or not. There's at least one other option: Confront the deadly peril at some other time after preparing for it.

No, it is not a binary choice. But, it is a choice where one option is not really viable.

Getting back to the original topic, that is something that I believe was common to games played with older editions. Gathering info on the threat, preparing in a way that gives you an advantage you didn't have before, and then, perhaps with some luck, seizing victory from the jaws of certain defeat.

I don't think that is necessarily a staple of older editions. Like now, it's DM dependent.


Older editions were much more swingy. In 5E, the vast majority of classes have a way to heal damage, mitigate damage, lay there dying waiting to be saved, etc.

In 1E, 0 hit points were dead. End of story, roll up a new PC.


So although players might have played more cautious in 1E (or not because rolling up a new PC was easy), DMs in 5E can still mimic that swinginess by making some encounters a lot harder, or by creating dangerous situations with no foreshadowing (it's harder to still take on that lair of Trolls when a random encounter of Hill Giants used up 2/3rds of the party's spells on the trip to the lair). This is a DM (and player) decision in 5E and is no longer solely the results of cold or hot dice like it was in 1E.

 

[iserith]

Again, if that is the case, the DM is not really giving them a decision. He is deciding for them and couching it in a way so that they cannot make that decision (especially if they know that the DM is just going to TPK them if they make that decision).

That is factually incorrect. The decision is still the players'. The best decision for survival may be obvious (to the extent they don't want to die), but it's still their decision to make. And as I've shown, there are many other possible decisions they could make other than just running straight toward their certain death. The DM is only telegraphing the difficulty of the challenge, which is what he or she should do in my opinion. Otherwise, it's not fair as I see it.

 

[Valetudo]

If the DM is playing honestly in 5E, it is just about impossible to kill characters off due to everybody having some kind of healing ability, rage (damage against you is reduced), 2nd wind and so on. Bards can heal, Rogues can attack then disengage, Warlocks, well dont get me started on that class lol.

I remember dying alot when I played 1E AD&D, the only healing you had either came from a cleric or a potion. We older DM's are now see'ing the legacy of the World of Warcraft mentality in paper and pen RPG's designs. In D&D 3.5, you could still die sometimes but 4E took D&D to an MMO level of playing and 5E I think continues this trend but in a lot less transparent way.

Scott

This is not true 5th is rocket tag at 1st and 2nd level. Maybe not 1hp at 1st og dnd bad but still, its easy to wipe a party at 1st. Even later on fair tactics and a good mix of melee, range, and spellcasting baddies can wipe the floor with an overconfidant party. And within xp budget no less. I just think most of the complainers have dms who just throw monsters at players with no strategy.

 

[Uchawi]

Sometimes just doing something different is enough, whether that is classic D&D or another roleplaying system. I am amazed the stamina some players have in regards to using the same system beyond 3 to 4 years. The rules themselves do contribute to the feel of the game and therefore 5E is its own game.

 

[KarinsDad]

But it's not good for getting your point across. Not just me- but everyone who has made a comment has made the same point. Look, like I wrote, if I say that players shouldn't punch other players because it's metagaming .... because I lack the vocabulary to get the point across otherwise (??), the only thing I have done is obfuscate the issue, because every single person is going to say, "Well, punching someone is bad, but that's not metagaming."

Words matter.




So... when you wrote, "I fail to see a major distinction{,}" you were just being difficult for no good reason? Awesome?

Who's obfuscating now? There is a obviously a difference between DMs and players, but stating that a DM is not a participant in a game is not accurate. Words matter. I've twice asked you to give me some terminology which would be more applicable and twice you have just complained about the terminology that I used.

No, the DM is not a player.

Yes, he is. He's playing the game too. He has a special role, but he is still playing the game. He is not just a referee. He is not just the drawer of maps. He is not just an impartial adjudicator.

Players roleplay their PCs. DMs roleplay the NPCs. Both participate in the conversations and interactions, not just the players. Sorry, but DMs are participants in their games. They are investing their time at the table like every other player. They are eating food like other players. They are telling jokes like other players. They are roleplaying like other players. They are influencing the story like other players. They sometimes have a great time like other players, and they are sometimes frustrated like other players. They are basically doing everything that other players are doing, they just do a lot more on top of what the other players are doing.

The only thing that a DM does not do is roleplay an individual PC, but that's semantics. Instead, he roleplays hundreds of NPCs. He's playing the game too.


Put another way, the DM is there to have fun playing the game too. The DM plays the game to have fun just as much as every other person sitting at the table.


Now you can reply that I am obfuscating the term player in the game, but the term basically means "a person taking part in a sport or game". The DM falls under that category.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah 1 level can be a pain, next time I run a brutal AD&D/B/X game I will probably have a treasure hunt. After Princes of the Apocalypse wraps I think we are going to play Adventure Conqueror King or 2E Darksun.

Some of the old adventures are very interesting. I was reading one last night in an old Dungeon for 10th level PCs and the adventure is a travelling circus which is actually a portable group of assassins run by a 20th level magic user.

 

[KarinsDad]

That is factually incorrect. The decision is still the players'. The best decision for survival may be obvious (to the extent they don't want to die), but it's still their decision to make. And as I've shown, there are many other possible decisions they could make other than just running straight toward their certain death. The DM is only telegraphing the difficulty of the challenge, which is what he or she should do in my opinion. Otherwise, it's not fair as I see it.

Yeah, this is like saying that it is a decision to not have your PC jump off a 1000 foot cliff. Yeah, it is technically a decision, but it is not practically a decision.