Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Matt Colville on adventure length
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9323968" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I had genuinely considered discussing this, even wrote out a lengthy paragraph about it, and deleted it thinking "eh, that's just me enjoying the sound of my own voice." Perhaps I was mistaken!</p><p></p><p>The thing is, both sides have a point. The <em>Kobayashi Maru</em> scenario says, if you're gonna command, you gotta be able to pick your battles--and sometimes that means accepting that, even with magical technobabble, some problems aren't soluble without sacrifice. Of course, it does this in an extremely heavy-handed way, which rather cheapens the lesson if you do anything even slightly off the beaten path, but it's still a good lesson to learn. Kirk's point is, don't get complacent: creativity, particularly in the form of changing the rules of engagement, can wrest victory from the jaws of defeat. Of course, his problem is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good--and holding himself to an impossible standard, such that when it breaks in spectacular fashion (resulting in the death of his son), he's incapable of moving past it, and it haunts him for at least a decade thereafter.</p><p></p><p>Those are both valid points with pitfalls if taken too far. You could argue that the synthesis of the two comes together in the well-known prayer (probably, but not conclusively, originating from Richard Niebuhr): “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things that I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” The <em>Kobayashi Maru</em> tries to teach the former, the serenity to accept the things you can't change. Kirk preaches the latter: havea the courage to change everything you can. It's thus incumbent upon us to develop the wisdom to tell the difference.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Often, so do I!</p><p></p><p>Because guess what? (A) The game is ending anyway. There is no more story to tell, except perhaps an epilogue, so the sacrifice does not come at the cost of my continued participation, indeed, the player usually gets to see all subsequent story regardless. (B) A noble sacrifice to save another is a beautiful end to a character's arc, especially if that sacrifice is the culmination of a story about someone who would never have entertained such a notion. (C) By that point, you presumably will have completed a huge amount of content, and can thus say that you really got quite a good journey out of it, as opposed to the way random lethality works in actual D&D games, where it strikes out of the blue and usually well before anything has been even remotely resolved.</p><p></p><p>That's why I always talk about <em>random, permanent, irrevocable</em> death. None of these sacrifices you speak of are <em>random</em>. They are very consciously chosen. I cannot overstate how <strong><em>VAST</em></strong> a difference a consciously-chosen sacrifice is over "random mook #112 got a lucky crit and you died." You'll also note how both BG3 and the Dragon Age games <em>don't permanently kill characters off</em>. BG3, you have the existing 5e rules, and every companion comes with one or more scrolls of <em>revivify</em>, and even those are rarely necessary because there's an NPC you can't avoid recruiting who can revive dead party members for you (albeit at a small gold cost.) DA games have nonpermanent death; characters stand back up. BG3 has non-irrevocable death; the dead stay dead, unless revived, for a cost. IMO, it's a slap-on-the-wrist cost and it would be implemented better if there were actual narrative consequences for death, as was the case in, frex, <em>Planescape: Torment</em>, but that's a separate issue.</p><p></p><p>Truly random, permanent, irrevocable death is rare in CRPGs, for a variety of reasons. That's why the best of them use costs and consequences that aren't the death of the player character in order to give weight to things. BG3, to continue the example, has the half-ilithid and full-ilithid transformations.</p><p></p><p>Also, there is the dark reflection if the "noble sacrifice ending": A character doing something monumentally and lethally stupid, which the player <em>has been warned</em> is monumentally and lethally stupid, and which they choose to do anyway, consciously and intentionally ignoring or dismissing the risk. That is also not a random death, but for rather a more disappointing reason. Namely, the player, ahem, <em>fooled</em> around and found out. A player who does this once usually does not need to be told thereafter that if you play stupid games, you will win stupid prizes, but if it <em>does</em> happen more than once, a heart-to-heart is almost certainly required.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9323968, member: 6790260"] I had genuinely considered discussing this, even wrote out a lengthy paragraph about it, and deleted it thinking "eh, that's just me enjoying the sound of my own voice." Perhaps I was mistaken! The thing is, both sides have a point. The [I]Kobayashi Maru[/I] scenario says, if you're gonna command, you gotta be able to pick your battles--and sometimes that means accepting that, even with magical technobabble, some problems aren't soluble without sacrifice. Of course, it does this in an extremely heavy-handed way, which rather cheapens the lesson if you do anything even slightly off the beaten path, but it's still a good lesson to learn. Kirk's point is, don't get complacent: creativity, particularly in the form of changing the rules of engagement, can wrest victory from the jaws of defeat. Of course, his problem is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good--and holding himself to an impossible standard, such that when it breaks in spectacular fashion (resulting in the death of his son), he's incapable of moving past it, and it haunts him for at least a decade thereafter. Those are both valid points with pitfalls if taken too far. You could argue that the synthesis of the two comes together in the well-known prayer (probably, but not conclusively, originating from Richard Niebuhr): “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things that I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” The [I]Kobayashi Maru[/I] tries to teach the former, the serenity to accept the things you can't change. Kirk preaches the latter: havea the courage to change everything you can. It's thus incumbent upon us to develop the wisdom to tell the difference. Often, so do I! Because guess what? (A) The game is ending anyway. There is no more story to tell, except perhaps an epilogue, so the sacrifice does not come at the cost of my continued participation, indeed, the player usually gets to see all subsequent story regardless. (B) A noble sacrifice to save another is a beautiful end to a character's arc, especially if that sacrifice is the culmination of a story about someone who would never have entertained such a notion. (C) By that point, you presumably will have completed a huge amount of content, and can thus say that you really got quite a good journey out of it, as opposed to the way random lethality works in actual D&D games, where it strikes out of the blue and usually well before anything has been even remotely resolved. That's why I always talk about [I]random, permanent, irrevocable[/I] death. None of these sacrifices you speak of are [I]random[/I]. They are very consciously chosen. I cannot overstate how [B][I]VAST[/I][/B] a difference a consciously-chosen sacrifice is over "random mook #112 got a lucky crit and you died." You'll also note how both BG3 and the Dragon Age games [I]don't permanently kill characters off[/I]. BG3, you have the existing 5e rules, and every companion comes with one or more scrolls of [I]revivify[/I], and even those are rarely necessary because there's an NPC you can't avoid recruiting who can revive dead party members for you (albeit at a small gold cost.) DA games have nonpermanent death; characters stand back up. BG3 has non-irrevocable death; the dead stay dead, unless revived, for a cost. IMO, it's a slap-on-the-wrist cost and it would be implemented better if there were actual narrative consequences for death, as was the case in, frex, [I]Planescape: Torment[/I], but that's a separate issue. Truly random, permanent, irrevocable death is rare in CRPGs, for a variety of reasons. That's why the best of them use costs and consequences that aren't the death of the player character in order to give weight to things. BG3, to continue the example, has the half-ilithid and full-ilithid transformations. Also, there is the dark reflection if the "noble sacrifice ending": A character doing something monumentally and lethally stupid, which the player [I]has been warned[/I] is monumentally and lethally stupid, and which they choose to do anyway, consciously and intentionally ignoring or dismissing the risk. That is also not a random death, but for rather a more disappointing reason. Namely, the player, ahem, [I]fooled[/I] around and found out. A player who does this once usually does not need to be told thereafter that if you play stupid games, you will win stupid prizes, but if it [I]does[/I] happen more than once, a heart-to-heart is almost certainly required. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Matt Colville on adventure length
Top