D&D General Why Combat is a Fail State - Blog and Thoughts

[Theory of Games]

They also learn a bunch of negative behaviors as well: spending undo amounts of time hyper analyzing every door, chest, and 10 ft floor tile for traps/mimics, assume every NPC is a doppelganger/succubus, and searching for every possible way to parse a DMs words to gain advantages.

That's a nasty assumption

 

[Remathilis]

That's a DM who has trained their players to act in that way... by being unable to create scenarios that don't involve trapping every floor tile and door, and making every NPC secretly against everything the PCs want to do.

(General) you don't want your players spending ungodly amounts of time analyzing every door, chest and 10 foot floor tile? Don't trap them. Teach them that (general) you as a DM find that style of gameplay to be more pain than its worth and just don't bother. Teach them to play your game the way you'd prefer to play it. Not every NPC is secretly out to get the PCs. In fact, the true answer is virtually zero NPCs are secretly out to get the PCs. The ones that want to get the PCs? Are pretty obvious. Play that way and your players will learn.

(And by extension... (general) you are tired of your players always creating PCs that have darkvision? That's because you've continually thrown monsters at them from the darkness in an effort to surprise them. Stop doing that... stop making it imperative to have darkvision... and you'll teach your players they can play any species they want.)

You are correct that you teach your players the way you want them to play, but a LOT of so-called "OS" play assumes an almost Tomb of Horrors level of deadliness, and once that assumption is ingrained, its VERY hard to undo. Once bitten, twice shy. Goodman Games in particular LOVED that style of "everything is trapped, even the traps" OS play. And while that kind of dangerous, exciting play can foster intelligent thinking, it can also foster overthinking and paranoia.

 

[Remathilis]

That's a nasty assumption

But a true one. The horror stories of PCs spending 30 real minutes in standing in front of a door came from somewhere (and welcomed the wandering monster roll into existence). They came from DMs emulating the Tomb of Horrors, Keep on the Borderlands, and other OS classics.

 

[Gus L]

They also learn a bunch of negative behaviors as well: spending undo amounts of time hyper analyzing every door, chest, and 10 ft floor tile for traps/mimics, assume every NPC is a doppelganger/succubus, and searching for every possible way to parse a DMs words to gain advantages.

Seems like you've had some bad experiences with OSR play styles or dungeon crawls.

You're providing a list of common complaints that people familiar with more modern games sometimes make about OSR style play or older editions. The issue is that to the degree these exist, the community that plays OSR style games has largely addressed them.

1) Excessive Caution: While caution is still useful when playing games about exploring dangerous environments this issue is managed by the introduction of exploration mechanics such as turn keeping, random encounters, supply depletion and encumbrance.

2) Dangerous NPCs: I'm not sure how this is different between systems... This seems like a table problem not a system one. However, I have noticed that in published WotC 5E material that tricks and lies are always automatically detectable with skill checks (or entirely undetectable if they are plot necessary) - that's simply not how older and OSR styles of play work. If the players chose to trust NPCs that's their decision and if the referee and adventure designer are competent then there will be ways of determining what these NPCs motives and potential for betrayal are.

3)Antagonistic Referee/Player Relationship: This is a table problem, not a system one. While the traditional of referee control is stronger in older editions and OSR style games, there is also less space for arguing over rulebook minutia. While players can't push back as much using mechanics, the referee also doesn't need to structure things so mechanical loop holes are closed as much. A good referee in any game will act as a neutral arbitrator who trusts their players to overcome the obstacles in the game creatively, accept their successes and have ways of continuing the adventure even if the players manage (through luck, schemes or abilities) to trivialize an obstacle or enemy unexpectedly. Likewise a good player can accept that a plan won't work sometimes and is willing to trust their referee to run things fairly.

If you haven't, try playing an OSR style game sometime - or try figuring out how you'd run one if playing one is too much work. It's just a different style of play with a different emphasis, but it's still D&D... or at least something like it.

 

[TiQuinn]

You are correct that you teach your players the way you want them to play, but a LOT of so-called "OS" play assumes an almost Tomb of Horrors level of deadliness, and once that assumption is ingrained, its VERY hard to undo. Once bitten, twice shy. Goodman Games in particular LOVED that style of "everything is trapped, even the traps" OS play. And while that kind of dangerous, exciting play can foster intelligent thinking, it can also foster overthinking and paranoia.

So IMO, this is what I’m trying to avoid and it’s why a straight up retroclone that wants to emulate these features of older modules doesn’t appeal to me. The pit-trapped hallway in Tomb of Horrors for example works because there’s layers of traps occurring in that one room, as well as non-trapped features and riddles that the party needs to figure out - it works together as a whole. Transporting that same trapped hallway into another adventure often just shifts that single element - the pit traps - and now it simply feels like a gotcha. They have no greater context.

If you look at another adventure like White Plume Mountain, it’s certainly a funhouse dungeon, but it doesn’t repeat that element - the traps are unique and memorable. Shadowdark does a good job of trying to teach GMs how to create unique traps that aren’t gotchas. If there’s a pit trap, as an example, there should be some sort of indicator that something is amiss. Blood may stain the floor and then stop abruptly. A boot print may be halfway cut off where the pit opens up, or dust on the floor shows where something or someone slid or was dragged down the hallway.

I like smarter adventures that blend older styles of play with better design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with most of your post and your general philosophy expressed here, and I even broadly agree with this paragraph, but I think it misses something that's exemplified by this section. The "randomization of ideas" is, at its heart, the game. Although the negotiation, imagination, and storytelling are all key to the game as well, the game is all about dealing with unexpected events. Otherwise, it's just collaborative storytelling - which is a realm that a lot of rules-light RPGs definitely stray into, often with great results!

But taking OSR and its offspring, the dice are there to force improvisation and clever storytelling, for both the DM and the players. They're also there to create true drama, which I would argue is also a key component of RPGs. Not to get too academic, but without the whims of the gods (of dice, in this case), true drama cannot exist. If my character survives by the skin of their teeth due to my DM being motivated to tell a fun story, or to prevent a TPK, or just because the game is going well and they don't want me to have to roll a new character, then there's no drama and no story. If they survive despite it all, thanks to a lucky roll (and perhaps the intervention of Fate), then that's drama, and a real story to tell.

Of course, none of this really applies to the OP's post (which is strictly limited to OSR combat philosophy), but your post got me to think about this point. It's part of the general tug-of-war between rules-light and -heavy systems, and the debate over the reason we play RPGs at all.

Well said. Ideally, I don't want the DM or the rules to be motivated or designed towards what makes a good story, but rather toward making a world where good stories could happen, if that's how it works out through the interaction of setting and characters (PC and NPC alike). Pushing the "good story" agenda through mechanics or DM authority, for me, makes the whole exercise feel more forced and less organic.

 

[Remathilis]

Seems like you've had some bad experiences with OSR play styles or dungeon crawls.

You're providing a list of common complaints that people familiar with more modern games sometimes make about OSR style play or older editions. The issue is that to the degree these exist, the community that plays OSR style games has largely addressed them.

1) Excessive Caution: While caution is still useful when playing games about exploring dangerous environments this issue is managed by the introduction of exploration mechanics such as turn keeping, random encounters, supply depletion and encumbrance.

2) Dangerous NPCs: I'm not sure how this is different between systems... This seems like a table problem not a system one. However, I have noticed that in published WotC 5E material that tricks and lies are always automatically detectable with skill checks (or entirely undetectable if they are plot necessary) - that's simply not how older and OSR styles of play work. If the players chose to trust NPCs that's their decision and if the referee and adventure designer are competent then there will be ways of determining what these NPCs motives and potential for betrayal are.

3)Antagonistic Referee/Player Relationship: This is a table problem, not a system one. While the traditional of referee control is stronger in older editions and OSR style games, there is also less space for arguing over rulebook minutia. While players can't push back as much using mechanics, the referee also doesn't need to structure things so mechanical loop holes are closed as much. A good referee in any game will act as a neutral arbitrator who trusts their players to overcome the obstacles in the game creatively, accept their successes and have ways of continuing the adventure even if the players manage (through luck, schemes or abilities) to trivialize an obstacle or enemy unexpectedly. Likewise a good player can accept that a plan won't work sometimes and is willing to trust their referee to run things fairly.

If you haven't, try playing an OSR style game sometime - or try figuring out how you'd run one if playing one is too much work. It's just a different style of play with a different emphasis, but it's still D&D... or at least something like it.

I started in AD&D and I remember a lot of the classics (and some of the not-so-classics) but a lot of Gygaxian advice (some of it from Gygax himelf). I also spoke with a lot of players back in the day and every one of them remembers the issues I outlined being rather prevalent in gaming. System, table, or both, they were all elements of OS D&D. The assumption was that since anything can be trap and there was no guarantee on survivability (the prisoner is really a medusa, save vs petrification) you treated EVERYTHING like it was a lethal encounter and a.) either gave it the upmost caution and deliberation, scutinizing all elements of it in case the DM was screwing with you or b.) Yolo, charge in, and grab 3d6. To me, neither of those endpoints are particularly appealing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It also does lead to the problems of what if the players idea of impartiality doesn't match the GM's idea of impartiality. When do real world physics start to bleed into game physics, and does that always get applied equally in different situations? Even as kids playing make believe, there were lots of disagreements about whether something was "fair" or not.

That's what discussion is for. IMO a good GM and good players should be prepared to listen seriously to each others thoughts about what's fair with an open mind, even if at the end I believe the GM gets to make the final call. I know some people seem to hate hearing this, but it really is IMO about trust.

 

[Remathilis]

So IMO, this is what I’m trying to avoid and it’s why a straight up retroclone that wants to emulate these features of older modules doesn’t appeal to me. The pit-trapped hallway in Tomb of Horrors for example works because there’s layers of traps occurring in that one room, as well as non-trapped features and riddles that the party needs to figure out - it works together as a whole. Transporting that same trapped hallway into another adventure often just shifts that single element - the pit traps - and now it simply feels like a gotcha. They have no greater context.

If you look at another adventure like White Plume Mountain, it’s certainly a funhouse dungeon, but it doesn’t repeat that element - the traps are unique and memorable. Shadowdark does a good job of trying to teach GMs how to create unique traps that aren’t gotchas. If there’s a pit trap, as an example, there should be some sort of indicator that something is amiss. Blood may stain the floor and then stop abruptly. A boot print may be halfway cut off where the pit opens up, or dust on the floor shows where something or someone slid or was dragged down the hallway.

I like smarter adventures that blend older styles of play with better design.

To me, OS play and OS rules are not inseperaable. I played a lot of Goodman Games DCCs during 3x and those were all "Third edition rules, first edtion feel" and guess what they meant by "first editon feel?" Traps on traps. NPCs waiting to betray your party. Gotcha encounters. They only worked because generally speaking they played by 3e's rules for encounters and traps, meaning they were rarely the auto-kills that older D&D had. But when you mix that "1e feel" with OS assumptions on lethality, you get the perfect brew for paranoid players treating every doorknob likes its covered in contact poison (save vs poison or die). Even the ones to their own innrooms!

 

[payn]

Seems like you've had some bad experiences with OSR play styles or dungeon crawls.

You're providing a list of common complaints that people familiar with more modern games sometimes make about OSR style play or older editions. The issue is that to the degree these exist, the community that plays OSR style games has largely addressed them.

1) Excessive Caution: While caution is still useful when playing games about exploring dangerous environments this issue is managed by the introduction of exploration mechanics such as turn keeping, random encounters, supply depletion and encumbrance.

2) Dangerous NPCs: I'm not sure how this is different between systems... This seems like a table problem not a system one. However, I have noticed that in published WotC 5E material that tricks and lies are always automatically detectable with skill checks (or entirely undetectable if they are plot necessary) - that's simply not how older and OSR styles of play work. If the players chose to trust NPCs that's their decision and if the referee and adventure designer are competent then there will be ways of determining what these NPCs motives and potential for betrayal are.

3)Antagonistic Referee/Player Relationship: This is a table problem, not a system one. While the traditional of referee control is stronger in older editions and OSR style games, there is also less space for arguing over rulebook minutia. While players can't push back as much using mechanics, the referee also doesn't need to structure things so mechanical loop holes are closed as much. A good referee in any game will act as a neutral arbitrator who trusts their players to overcome the obstacles in the game creatively, accept their successes and have ways of continuing the adventure even if the players manage (through luck, schemes or abilities) to trivialize an obstacle or enemy unexpectedly. Likewise a good player can accept that a plan won't work sometimes and is willing to trust their referee to run things fairly.

If you haven't, try playing an OSR style game sometime - or try figuring out how you'd run one if playing one is too much work. It's just a different style of play with a different emphasis, but it's still D&D... or at least something like it.

It's true, there will always be a danger element to skill play, but it doesnt have to be a paranoia filled session from start to finish. I had an old school player/GM that was relentless about the survival sim. What I found out is they were nervous about skill play going away, so felt like they had to hold the tide of change at bay all by themselves. Once OSR products came about they relaxed and were able to loosen up game to game.