D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[Guest 6801328]

The point of an RPG ruleset is not to manipulate the emotional state of its players. An RPG ruleset exists to provide impartial adjudication, so that players can make the decisions that their characters would make and have those decisions be meaningful. If you refuse to understand that - which seems fairly evident by now - then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I'll side with pemerton on this. I think the point of RPGs (including their rules) *is* to manipulate emotional states. That's immersion.

Trying to "make the decisions that their characters would make" is some kind of simulationism I guess, but if I'm not feeling the same fear/confusion/suspense/worry/elation/whatever as my character then I'm not going to feel very immersed, regardless of how adept the other players are at avoiding metagaming.

 

[Guest 6801328]

We're pretending, though. You don't have to actually starve yourself in order to play a character who is starving, just like you don't have to get stabbed in order to play a character who has been stabbed. I don't need to suffer in order to play a character who is suffering.

I mean, I guess you could add that sort of thing, if you really wanted to do. It's like mood music. It doesn't hurt anything, as long as you don't sacrifice anything to achieve it. FATE, in particular, sacrifices everything important by asking the player to consider meta-game concerns, such as the story and fate points. Just about the only worse "RPG", in that regard, would be Dread. By contrast, your 4E example shows how this sort of thing can be done well.

But you're talking about emotional states brought on by physical effects. You're leaving out the whole range of emotional states that don't require actual physical discomfort. The suspense of creeping through a dungeon wondering if you're going to get out alive; the fear of confronting an enemy you suspect will lead to a TPK; the anger when you realize you've been betrayed by a trusted NPC. A player can easily share all those emotions with his/her character. And none of it has to be pretending.

This all comes back to the age-old debate about metagaming:

If' I'm pretending to not know about trolls and fire, then I'm going to be thinking, "I wonder how much longer I have to pretend before I can whip out the flask of oil" or "Wow Frank is doing a really good job pretending to not know about trolls; if we hadn't been playing together for five years I'd almost believe him." What I won't be thinking is "holy fracking ...what are these things? I think we're gonna TPK"...which would be much closer to my character's emotional state.

The former...the "pretending"...I find to be completely uninteresting from both a game and roleplaying perspective. The latter is immersion, and it's what I'm looking for in RPGs.

 

[Shasarak]

"The ogres swings and misses!" *records 17 damage to the PC*

If the DM told me that the Ogre swung and missed me then I would record no damage to my PC because I would believe him.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see why either of these claims is true.

Your stamina is running out.
You barely manage to dodge the orc's blow.
You are being hard-pressed by your foes.
You feel your resolve slipping.
You can see that your comrade's spirits are flagging.
Hope is ebbing.

I don't know if this is the sort of thing that [MENTION=6701872]AaronOfBarbaria[/MENTION] has in mind.

Deliberately chopping my post so you could quote it out of context is... No, I can't say what it is here, but I'm sure you know. Instead, I'm going to respond to your post in the context I posted in.

Your stamina is running out.

Your stamina also runs out at the end of a night, when you forced march, run 100 yards and for many other reasons. Unless you expect the cleric to cast cure spells on people fatigued for other reasons, this argument fails. The PC can't distinguish between damage fatigue and other sorts.

You barely manage to dodge the orc's blow.

You can barely dodge blows that miss and do no damage, so unless you expect the cleric to cast cures every time someone is missed, that argument fails for the same reason as above.

You are being hard-pressed by your foes.

You are also hard pressed by foes that miss you and deal no damage. Yada yada yada same as above.

You feel your resolve slipping.
You can see that your comrade's spirits are flagging.
Hope is ebbing.

Yada yada it's all the same. Everything you listed has non-combat, non-damaging counterparts that are indistinguishable from the damage descriptions.

Yes, you can describe damage that way. No, it's not enough to clue in a cleric that hit point loss has happened. Yes, clerics can cast the proper spells anyway, because it's a necessary evil to allow it.

 

[Maxperson]

I'll side with pemerton on this. I think the point of RPGs (including their rules) *is* to manipulate emotional states. That's immersion.

Trying to "make the decisions that their characters would make" is some kind of simulationism I guess, but if I'm not feeling the same fear/confusion/suspense/worry/elation/whatever as my character then I'm not going to feel very immersed, regardless of how adept the other players are at avoiding metagaming.

I'm going to do what will probably crash this site, and agree with both Pemerton AND Elfcrusher.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, one of the things we miss about 2e was the way it didn't have much of any discussion in the PH or DMG of what hps 'actually' represented?

 

[Ancalagon]

Casting "there/not there" (a 2nd ed wild magic spell) certainly had a major effect on the DM's emotions for some reason....

and there you go, something to miss from 2e! The wild magic is really not much in 5e....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If the DM told me that the Ogre swung and missed me then I would record no damage to my PC because I would believe him.

In this example, the DM was recording the damage to the PCs and not informing the players about it.

After all, if the PCs can't see the damage, then it would be cheating for them to take that into consideration when deciding what spells to cast or when to rest.

 

[Umbran]

Read the book.

Arguments of the form, "In order to disagree with me you must be stupid/ignorant/unstable/mentally challenged," come across as insulting, and more than a little arrogant. You are, in effect, making the argument personal with an accusation (in this case, that he didn't read). The old advice applies - don't ground the issue on the person of the poster, but on the logic. Otherwise, this becomes an argument of ego, rather than a discussion of facts.

I quoted exact text that says what I'm claiming. It's your turn........if you can.

I know this is from a little further back int he thread, but...

Really, dude, what's next? "I double-dog dare you?" Not exactly a mature discussion construction, you know. If you'd like to make it more transparently a *personal* conflict, rather than a disagreement about rules, you'll have to challenge him to nerf guns at dawn.

Please, chill out - because we don't support this "I challenge thee!" sort of debate tactics.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

(quoting the book) When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises

Thanks for the reference. Now I have a serious question to all:
Do you think a concussion qualifies as a "sign of wear and tear" per the book?

I ask because I've been following several (american) football blogs myself. Lots of american football forums are as entertaining and energizing just like here Me personally, a concussion would be "visible HP loss" as it can be visible in a player's eye movement and alter a players attitude. Kinda like physical shock. Even at the office at my job, there have been a few meetings where I would leave the room almost physically "shaking with rage" or shock.

Is a concussion or physical shock a visible sign of HP loss? In 2e? In 5e?

After all, if the PCs can't see the damage, then it would be cheating for them to take that into consideration when deciding what spells to cast or when to rest.

So the "D&D" you describe allows characters to see the hitpoints of other characters. Then that begs the question:
- Can PCs see the monsters' hitpoints? For the purpose of spells depending on HP total.
- Can the PCs see their own alignment? For the purpose of spells that depend on it.
- Also did 2e use the "1e Law-Chaos" alignment system or the "3e 9-point" system?
- Oh, why not: Did 2e use the "4e 5-point" alignment system? Ok, this one's optional.