D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[overgeeked]

We had 1 character with about 200gp (they found a gem while thieving). 1 character was OK wealth (they rolled well for starting GP), and two destitute sleeping in the ground characters.

But this takes me back to why I don't like fighters in early editions. The rogue and wizard had things they could do outside of combat to help themselves without having to face instant death at the hands of a wolf/kobold/goblin/bandit. In order for my character to contribute I HAD to expose myself to be one-shotted or just sling and run away and be relativy safe.

That's not fun (for me).

Ah. So the two players were being jerks. That’s not the game, that’s the players.

 

[overgeeked]

This is very condescending. There is no actual adversity here, it's all imaginary. The sense of accomplishment you talk about here is based on what you pretend happens in a pretend world. Claiming that others "hide from adversity" because they play pretend differently than you do is very condescending.

It’s not condescending. It’s the results of a literal study of gaming habits. Some people play games for the challenge. Some find challenges in games to be inherently unfun. Not that it will matter, but I’ll track down the link.

ETA: Never mind. It’s pointless. Tschüss.

 

[overgeeked]

There you would be mistaken, I remember the one time we legitimately rolled three fighters with 18/98 18/99 and 18/00 (at the table in sight) and then rolled 1s and 2s for hp. It was a very short but violent campaign. lmao

Right? And all these years later you still remember that. That’s part of the point. It makes things memorable. Yet one more character perfectly aligned with their class, all the right bonuses in all the right places...snooze.

 

[payn]

It’s not condescending. It’s the results of a literal study of gaming habits. Some people play games for the challenge. Some find challenges in games to be inherently unfun. Not that it will matter, but I’ll track down the link.

Even more condescending is this idea that if you don't like random chargen, you don't like challenge in your game at all.

 

[billd91]

This is very condescending. There is no actual adversity here, it's all imaginary. The sense of accomplishment you talk about here is based on what you pretend happens in a pretend world. Claiming that others "hide from adversity" because they play pretend differently than you do is very condescending.

You're accusing him of being condescending with this post? While dismissing any adversity as being imaginary/pretend?!?
Yeah, it is all based on an imaginary context - and any adversity or accomplishment is within the context of a game. So what?!? So you're not actually engaged in some physical Sisyphusian task, that doesn't mean that there isn't challenge and accomplishment within its context.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Right? And all these years later you still remember that. That’s part of the point. It makes things memorable. Yet one more character perfectly aligned with their class, all the right bonuses in all the right places...snooze.

There is one character that landed in the awesome zone I remember, there are dozens that landed on their face that I could talk about for hours. Superheroes ARE boring, loveable screw-ups that survive in spite of incompetence, are epic.

 

[Eric V]

You're accusing him of being condescending with this post? While dismissing any adversity as being imaginary/pretend?!?

He is being condescending, though.

 

[Lanefan]

So would you accept a job that only paid you in Lottery tickets? I mean, you only need to get lucky once and you're set for life! Think of the risk, but think of the reward!

In real life? No.

In a game? Sure, why not?

Worth noting that in the game the odds (ignoring average results) of doing well vs doing poorly are far more even than they are in any lottery.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Ah. So the two players were being jerks. That’s not the game, that’s the players.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep telling me that my bad experience with old school DnD fighters is wrong. It's my experience.

Someone asked for an example of a game where we felt like dirt farmer cannon fodder at low levels and how long ago we experienced it so I gave them a data point.

My table is a group of friends who have been playing together for just under 20 years now. Nobody is a jerk. The sour experience is a combination of the Harn setting (dirt farmer starting characters) with built in limitations of a 1st level fighter in the RC.

I have not at any point said RC is bad. I have not said fighters are bad. I have only said I won't play a fighter from the RC because I find it's lack of interesting mechanical abilities to be off-putting.

There is no need for you to pop in and defend the RC against a single person's opinion of a single class in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Gating things by luck favors the lucky or the dishonest. You might as well set up d100 tables that randomly determine your race, class and alignment.

I don't have one for alignment but I in fact do have such tables for race and class for those as wants to use them; and every now and then someone does.

I like my dice to determine the success of what I do in game, not what I play. I did years of that style; playing what the dice let me until I finally got lucky enough to roll what I wanted only to be shanked by a goblin two sessions later.

You may have fun with that play. More power to you. I have reached the point that this kind of play is dissociative; that isn't my character, it's a toon, a pawn, a game piece no more interesting than the top hat in Monopoly or Professor Plum in Clue. I have no attachment beyond an occasional amusing anecdote, and most of them don't have names (either they are forgotten to time or never got named in the first place).

They all have names here, it's a prerequisite before the character can join the party - if only so it can in-character introduce itself or be introduced by someone else.