D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Umbran]

Yes, but the problem was the "everyone" rather than the "covert" (and 4E magic wasn't any more covert than in 3E anyway).

So, apparently a plain-voice hint that maybe edition warring wasn't appropriate didn't work. Fine.

Did you even note how this thread isn't about 4e? So, Cut it out, already. Take the edition warring to another board entirely, please. We are sick and tired of this sort of thing being injected where it isn't so much as relevant, much less constructive.

We are coming into another edition change - last time the sniping and general inability to let it go did real damage to the community, and maybe we were too lenient in dealing with it. Don't expect us to support it this time around.

I hope that's clear.

 

[Lanefan]

That's actually a tabletop gaming concept that I think designers need to spend more time exploring - the idea of divorcing the player from the notion of having a direct proxy in the game world. I used to play in a D&D game where each player had at least two characters, and chose one at the beginning of each "mission" to adventure with. But I don't know of many games that are building rules systems around concepts like that, and I think someone should try and tackle it.

Alert the media - I'm going to agree with Dannager!

You're quite right; and I'll go one step further: there is nothing wrong with playing more than one character at the same time, in the same party.

Back in 1e large parties were pretty much assumed (e.g. look at the cover art for the 1e PH, there's 11 people looting that room!) including various henches, hirelings, porters, etc. 3e went all-in on the 4-character party and occasional hench or cohort, and if I'm not mistaken 4e is built around a 5-character party and does it have henches or cohorts at all?

And a pleasant side-effect to your notion of having multiple characters and selecting one (or two) for each mission or adventure: the overall advancement of the game will slow down, allowing for a longer campaign.

Lanefan

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Back in 1e large parties were pretty much assumed (e.g. look at the cover art for the 1e PH, there's 11 people looting that room!) including various henches, hirelings, porters, etc. 3e went all-in on the 4-character party and occasional hench or cohort, and if I'm not mistaken 4e is built around a 5-character party and does it have henches or cohorts at all?

4e has henchmen rules (called "companions"). There are no cohort rules however. Companions are weaker, so your companions are effectively cohorts. Companions also get a full share of XP. In general, companions are used if the number of players at the table is low.

There are also rules for NPC minions that you can hire, each with special abilities. (These are generally noncombat abilities such as +2 to Diplomacy, however, which makes sense as minions are generally pretty terrible at fighting.)

And a pleasant side-effect to your notion of having multiple characters and selecting one (or two) for each mission or adventure: the overall advancement of the game will slow down, allowing for a longer campaign.

Whether that is pleasant or not is group-dependent. A game similar to Game of Thrones probably will have slow advancement, however.

 

[Elf Witch]

That's actually a tabletop gaming concept that I think designers need to spend more time exploring - the idea of divorcing the player from the notion of having a direct proxy in the game world. I used to play in a D&D game where each player had at least two characters, and chose one at the beginning of each "mission" to adventure with. But I don't know of many games that are building rules systems around concepts like that, and I think someone should try and tackle it.

I have to disagree with this. I would hate playing in a game where there is a stable of characters. One of the main things that attracts me to the game and the people I play with is the idea of fully developing a character and being a proxy in the game world. And I don't see why it is something that needs to be hardwired in the rules if a group like this idea then just make a bunch of characters. I know a lot of groups to do this.

 

[Elf Witch]

Alert the media - I'm going to agree with Dannager!

You're quite right; and I'll go one step further: there is nothing wrong with playing more than one character at the same time, in the same party.

Back in 1e large parties were pretty much assumed (e.g. look at the cover art for the 1e PH, there's 11 people looting that room!) including various henches, hirelings, porters, etc. 3e went all-in on the 4-character party and occasional hench or cohort, and if I'm not mistaken 4e is built around a 5-character party and does it have henches or cohorts at all?

And a pleasant side-effect to your notion of having multiple characters and selecting one (or two) for each mission or adventure: the overall advancement of the game will slow down, allowing for a longer campaign.

Lanefan

I hated this aspect of old school gaming back in the day. I found that most players can't easily role play more than one character and are uncomfortable role playing a conversation between their two characters. It also clogged combat at least in my experience.

I think this is one of those play styles that works for some and not for others.

 

[Dannager]

I have to disagree with this. I would hate playing in a game where there is a stable of characters. One of the main things that attracts me to the game and the people I play with is the idea of fully developing a character and being a proxy in the game world. And I don't see why it is something that needs to be hardwired in the rules if a group like this idea then just make a bunch of characters. I know a lot of groups to do this.

I should clarify - I'm not suggesting that this is how D&D should do it. D&D should continue to assume a one-character-per-player standard. I just think it would be cool for game designers to develop new games that explore the idea of breaking that standard. Though, certainly, this could form the basis of an interesting optional D&D rules module in 5e.

 

[Siberys]

A quote from a long-time player (33 years and counting, and only very rarely a DM) many years ago set the tone: "Dungeons without mortality are dungeons without life.", this in supportive response to a move at the time to make death harder to return from. And oddly enough, it was a straight DM decision much later yet to abandon this change.

And as DM, believe it or not there's been times when I've been damn annoyed that a character has died; along the lines of "well, bang goes that story idea".

Lanefan

(A little late to this, sorry.)

It's perfectly possible to have a tense game where the threat of death just isn't on the table, barring a player choosing that for themself. I'd prefer the tension to come from the threat of failure - if the Dark Lich isn't defeated quickly, the duchy will fall under his rule, and hundreds will die! The kidnapped villagers will be sacrificed at the witching hour - you must stop the cultists before it's too late! Et cetera.

High lethality can work - it's a great fit for Exploration-focused games, post-apocalyptic settings, and humorous games - but it only does for certain genres and tones, and those are usually the ones I'm not looking to play. :/

 

[Elf Witch]

I should clarify - I'm not suggesting that this is how D&D should do it. D&D should continue to assume a one-character-per-player standard. I just think it would be cool for game designers to develop new games that explore the idea of breaking that standard. Though, certainly, this could form the basis of an interesting optional D&D rules module in 5e.

As an option it would be great and I never understood why WOTC does not look at putting out books with options that help DMs who want to try different styles of play.

 

[Ballbo Big'uns]

I like the political intrigue. However, we already had that inspiration from the likes of the War of the Roses and "The Great Game" in the Wheel of Time Series. I'm such a hipster, but I'm annoyed by how popular GoT is because of the HBO show. I know it's petty and said, but it's true. My thoughts in lyrical rage-form here.

You know...I felt like listening to "Teenage Riot" the other day, so I looked it up on youtube. I haven't gotten around to buying it on itunes, and all my CD's are collecting dust in the attic.

Anyway, I read the comments thread and one guy was lamenting how kids have only heard of Sonic Youth because of Rock Band, and the Pixies because of that iphone 5S commercial, and how that makes them "Poseurs" or whatever.

But does it really matter where they've been exposed to these bands? Isn't the important thing that these kids are listening to Sonic Youth and the Pixies, and maybe eventually Pavement, Dinosaur Jr. and Redd Kross?

If I hadn't started listening to Metallica when the Black Album came out, I never would have discovered Diamondhead, the Killing Joke, or Merciful Fate.

If I hadn't heard Dave Dozy Beaky Mick and Tich in Tarantino's "Deathproof", I never would have discovered the Troggs, The Sonics or Link Wray.

It doesn't matter how people get exposed to something...the important thing is that now you and someone else now have common ground. That 16 year old kid who only found out about Social Distortion last year would probably love to hear the stories about you getting drunk with Mike Ness after a show in 1982.

As for D&D, it could stand to benefit from the popularity of Game of Thrones...but in my mind the game is primarily about pulp adventure stories from the likes of Robert Howard, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber and Clark Ashton Smith and it should reflect those by default. I wouldn't want to see D&D lose it's over-the-top, Strange Tales, paperback fantasy influences.

 

[Ballbo Big'uns]

Alert the media - I'm going to agree with Dannager!

You're quite right; and I'll go one step further: there is nothing wrong with playing more than one character at the same time, in the same party.

Back in 1e large parties were pretty much assumed (e.g. look at the cover art for the 1e PH, there's 11 people looting that room!) including various henches, hirelings, porters, etc. 3e went all-in on the 4-character party and occasional hench or cohort, and if I'm not mistaken 4e is built around a 5-character party and does it have henches or cohorts at all?

And a pleasant side-effect to your notion of having multiple characters and selecting one (or two) for each mission or adventure: the overall advancement of the game will slow down, allowing for a longer campaign.​

Lanefan

I don't like this style of play, personally.

In my opinion, these assumptions turn players characters into risk averse cowards who callously send hirelings to their deaths in pursuit of treasure. I understand that this is a character archetype that some people enjoy, but it really seems to be the default assumption of old school D&D.

I play D&D because I want to play heroic characters, not craven, paranoid sociopaths. While I agree that the game should always have the possibility of character mortality, I don't want it to motivate everything I do in character.