Why are we okay with violence in RPGs? - Page 13
Page 13 of 36 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 351
  1. #121
    Member
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)



    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Mateo, California, USA
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    AD&D, while lethal at low levels, was not particularly dangerous at higher levels.
    Nit-picking: do you mean that AD&D *across the board* was less lethal at high levels, or do you mean that *combat* was less lethal at high levels? If exploration remains lethal at high levels - traps, random diseases, and so forth - while combat drops in lethality, then that might shift the relative proportions of player interest in the three pillars. "If I solve this puzzle, then we can bypass the guard barracks!" is a bad deal, when the puzzle has a significant risk of "you pushed the wrong button, so you die" and fighting through the guard barracks has no significant risk of lethality (and also scores a few XP). Better to just turn away from the puzzle, and activate your +5 Chainsaw. This gives the DM reduced incentive to put any puzzles in the next dungeon - why bother, if players have learned to stick to combat?

    My observations indicate that "we've moved farther and farther away from the whole "murder hobo" approach to the game" is true both within D&D, and also across the genre, with some games going much further than others. I played the current Doctor Who game at a recent con, and though we rolled a lot of dice for action resolutions, it was 100% investigation and interaction, with no one so much as throwing a punch. (There was a scary monster; it was stuck in our dimension, we freed it, and it went away.) Are there also, on the other end of the spectrum, TRPGs which are even more kill-and-loot-oriented than D&D? Hackmaster, perhaps? Is reversion, away from negotiation, back to kill-and-loot, part of OSR's appeal?
    XP Hussar gave XP for this post

  2. #122
    Member
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Bagpuss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Wirral, UK
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Sun View Post
    If I ever need lessons in how to be a pretentious jerk I'll be sure to keep you in mind.
    I'm starting to be thankful that @Riley37 put me on their block list, but try not to rise to this troll. They are just trying to get you banned from the thread.
    Last edited by Bagpuss; Friday, 14th June, 2019 at 09:55 AM.

  3. #123
    Member
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Bagpuss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Wirral, UK
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post
    Sources or not, though, @Riley37 does - somewhat obliquely - raise an interesting point: reward mechanisms in RPGs have changed over the years, and it'd be interesting to know if there's ever been any competent research done on how playstyles adapt and morph as a result of these changes both within successive editions of a game and across the hobby as a whole.

    An easy example of what I'm talking about: early-days D&D was very risky for the PCs and gave x.p. for treasure recovered. This put a strong focus on looting every shred of valuable material from the dungeon ("Greyhawking" was, I think, the term for this), and so the foundational goals of play were to a) survive and b) get rich.
    Exactly in the early days avoiding conflict to gain treasure was one of the better ways of getting XP, because of the risk vs reward, was significantly less than getting into a fight. I remember scouting was a very popular strategy in those days.

    A pushback aginst this trend has seen the development of non-x.p.-based levelling and-or 'milestone' levelling, core in numerous systems and now an option in 5e D&D. For many reasons I'm not at all a fan of this and will never ever use it in any game I run, but I can appreciate it as at least an attempt to solve a legitimate problem.
    I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP.

  4. #124
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagpuss View Post
    I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP.
    I'm not @Lanefan, but the obvious limitation is that it removes XPs as Reward. Milestone seems to negate individual creative/smart efforts by characters, moving from individual level progression to a party-progression paradigm.

    Milestone certainly has its uses. Personally I would use that style of progression in more linear/railroad-y games which have a strong storyline buy-in.
    XP Lanefan gave XP for this post

  5. #125
    Member
    Superhero (Lvl 15)



    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadras View Post
    I'm not @Lanefan, but the obvious limitation is that it removes XPs as Reward. Milestone seems to negate individual creative/smart efforts by characters, moving from individual level progression to a party-progression paradigm.

    Milestone certainly has its uses. Personally I would use that style of progression in more linear/railroad-y games which have a strong storyline buy-in.
    mh, but should or could the reward for creative and smart solutions not be positive in-game consequences? Could be loot, could be a new ally, could be a favor, good political standing or some unforseen twist.

    Individual XP seem to be shunned upon in most groups I've played in as it discourages newbies or tends to be unfair or biased. In addition to setting unhealthy risk-reward incentives for players to "go solo".
    XP Bagpuss, Kaodi gave XP for this post

  6. #126
    Member
    Titan (Lvl 27)

    Hussar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fukuoka, Japan
    Posts
    22,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagpuss View Post
    Exactly in the early days avoiding conflict to gain treasure was one of the better ways of getting XP, because of the risk vs reward, was significantly less than getting into a fight. I remember scouting was a very popular strategy in those days.



    I'm curious as to why you wouldn't use it, what problems do you feel it doesn't address or it creates, in comparison to monster slaying for XP.
    See, I've never understood this.

    Like I said, sure, in the early levels, say 1-3, I get it. You want to be pretty careful about not biting off more than you can chew. But, after that? Why would you avoid a fight? You were almost always guaranteed to win. The odds of losing a fight were pretty darn slight. And, even then, by 9th level, you have access to raise dead, so, big deal, you can bring anyone back other than the cleric. Really, even before that, raising a PC wasn't exactly complicated. The odds of failure were extremely low.

    Sure, Res survival and all that, I get that. But, it's not like you were dying that often. We never bothered running from fights. We went room by room and killed everything that moved. Again, it wasn't until 3e that we actually started getting even remotely tactical in our thinking.

  7. #127
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Lylandra View Post
    mh, but should or could the reward for creative and smart solutions not be positive in-game consequences? Could be loot, could be a new ally, could be a favor, good political standing or some unforseen twist.
    100%. 5e adds to all those positive in-game consequences with mechanical positives too, as you likely know, like Inspiration points and in the DMG you have Faith, Faction progression...etc
    So yes, there is plenty to use as a substitute for XP.

    Individual XP seem to be shunned upon in most groups I've played in as it discourages newbies or tends to be unfair or biased. In addition to setting unhealthy risk-reward incentives for players to "go solo".
    Sure, XPs has its 'negatives' too, although not everyone sees all of that as bad. Having read many of @Lanefan's posts about the table he and his group run, I'd say they're ok with much of it. They easily run disproportionate leveled characters at their table with no worries, and have a lot of fun doing so. The higher-leveled characters shielding the newbies, with character death being a certainty.
    Last edited by Sadras; Friday, 14th June, 2019 at 11:32 AM.

  8. #128
    Member
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Bagpuss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    The Wirral, UK
    Posts
    4,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    See, I've never understood this.

    Like I said, sure, in the early levels, say 1-3, I get it. You want to be pretty careful about not biting off more than you can chew. But, after that? Why would you avoid a fight? You were almost always guaranteed to win. The odds of losing a fight were pretty darn slight.
    That's not my recollection of early D&D, there were a lot of "save or die" type creatures about, and there wasn't much guidance in the way of balancing encounters. I suppose it depends on the DM you had. I remember that certainly once you got past a certain level you didn't worry about hordes of goblins and the like, but you had a healthy respect of monsters and undead, particularly those that might paralyse or have level drain.
    XP Hussar, Sadras gave XP for this post

  9. #129
    Member
    Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)



    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagpuss View Post
    I suppose it depends on the DM you had.
    Agree with all you said, but for me it comes down to the above quote.

  10. #130
    Frazzled
    Dracolich (Lvl 29)

    Morrus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Intrawebs
    Posts
    40,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Riley37 View Post
    In which case, feel free to never hit REPLY to anything I write, ever again, starting now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immortal Sun View Post
    If I ever need lessons in how to be a pretentious jerk I'll be sure to keep you in mind.
    Really. Both of you.

    @Riley, ordering people not to reply to you is not how to handle a disagreement. Either politely disagree, or use the block function.

    @Immortal Sun, calling people names is DEFINITELY NOT how to handle a disagreement. I will also add -- if you report a post, and then immediately respond to it with namecalling or insults, we are *not* going to look
    favourably on it.

    Neither of you
    post in this thread again, please.

Similar Threads

  1. Need Violence! 24 Hour RPGs (Now available for download!)
    By HellHound in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Sunday, 31st July, 2005, 07:00 PM
  2. sex vs. violence
    By alsih2o in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: Monday, 19th May, 2003, 03:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •