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

[MGibster]

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.

As a player, when I encounter party members who seem paralyzed I will make the decision for them by kicking down a random door. We are not going to waste good playing time pointlessly debating about which way to go when we have no information about either door.

 

[TiQuinn]

As a player, when I encounter party members who seem paralyzed I will make the decision for them by kicking down a random door. We are not going to waste good playing time pointlessly debating about which way to go when we have no information about either door.

Same. If it’s a trap, let’s find out if it’s an interesting trap at least. I’d rather make something exciting happen than play a dungeon as something to be solved without danger. The latter usually results in boredom even if it’s “skilled play.”

 

[Remathilis]

As a player, when I encounter party members who seem paralyzed I will make the decision for them by kicking down a random door. We are not going to waste good playing time pointlessly debating about which way to go when we have no information about either door.

I even mentioned that becomes the antithesis of the moment. While the other players are having analysis paralysis, someone kicks down the door/drinks the potion/dives into the demon face portal and see's what happens. Its interesting and it certainly gets the ball rolling, but I would define that as the opposite of "smart play". In fact, its what the OS DM want's the avoid: a group of players barging into every encounter, trap, and whatever like bulls in a China shop leaving a trail of corpses (theirs and others) in their wake.

 

[Remathilis]

This was common back in the day, unfortunately, which is why I disliked D&D. It totally flies in the face of the modern OSR philosophy, however. Modern OSR play encourages GMs to telegraph danger so that players can make informed decisions. Dungeons should have multiple entrances and loops. There should be interesting things for players to interact with, not just traps and monsters. Players should be thinking creatively to overcome obstacles, but not be spending an hour of real time examining every door. It's also nice to have factions or dungeon denizens the party can roleplay with. There is definitely danger but when characters die, it should be from calculated risk taking, not just out of the blue.

I'm sure there are tables still playing the way you describe, but I don't know how common that is anymore.

Gavin Norman, Kelsey Dionne, Ben Milton, Amanda P., Brad Kerr and Yochai Gal, just to name a few off the top of my head, are fantastic sources for great OSR adventures and games. Daniel Norton of Bandit's Keep you Tube channel has a group of very heroic old school players, who avoid most combats, and felt so bad about one of their porters getting killed they spent money on resurrecting him.

Pardon my chuckling, but if the OSR philosophy has moved away from that, its not particularly OLD school, is it? I mean, most modern play styles moved away from ye-old-poisoned-needle deaths. I thought the point of the OSR was to embrace that.

 

[TiQuinn]

I even mentioned that becomes the antithesis of the moment. While the other players are having analysis paralysis, someone kicks down the door/drinks the potion/dives into the demon face portal and see's what happens. Its interesting and it certainly gets the ball rolling, but I would define that as the opposite of "smart play". In fact, its what the OS DM want's the avoid: a group of players barging into every encounter, trap, and whatever like bulls in a China shop leaving a trail of corpses (theirs and others) in their wake.

I agree - and I think that’s a bit of the trick.

How do you create a dungeon that both rewards smart play but also gets the players to engage with the elements of the dungeon?

Part of the answer has to be that exploring the dungeon, “defeating” its inhabitants, and solving its mysteries means it can’t be all a deathtrap. There needs to be something that draws the players in without punishing their PCs as a result.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree - and I think that’s a bit of the trick.

How do you create a dungeon that both rewards smart play but also gets the players to engage with the elements of the dungeon?

Part of the answer has to be that exploring the dungeon, “defeating” its inhabitants, and solving its mysteries means it can’t be all a deathtrap. There needs to be something that draws the players in without punishing their PCs as a result.

I agree, its a balancing act. But here's the catch, I can do that right now in modern 5e D&D. Nothing @Arilyn said above requires any sort of Old School rules or mentality. Its just good DMing. There should be multiple solutions or paths to a chosen goal? Fights and traps should be dangerous but not instant-kill deathtraps? None of that is particularly new or innovative.

 

[TiQuinn]

I agree, its a balancing act. But here's the catch, I can do that right now in modern 5e D&D. Nothing @Arilyn said above requires any sort of Old School rules or mentality. Its just good DMing. There should be multiple solutions or paths to a chosen goal? Fights and traps should be dangerous but not instant-kill deathtraps? None of that is particularly new or innovative.

No, but at least for me, I’m not looking at this as an OSR/NSR vs 5e type of thing. You’re right - the approach is the same. But while I have a good grasp on what I can do with 5e, I want to find out what’s out there in the OSR/NSR community that aligns with that and find out if there’s more to find there.

 

[Piperken]

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.

What is a mimic, but a trap?

It's almost 50 years old by now, yet still catches players by surprise.

 

[Arilyn]

In 5e, leaping in aggressively is often the smart choice. There is an expectation that encounters are balanced. 5e has more safety nets with healing and moving away from lingering consequences. This is why many (not all) players struggle when they switch to an old school game.

 

[Arilyn]

Pardon my chuckling, but if the OSR philosophy has moved away from that, its not particularly OLD school, is it? I mean, most modern play styles moved away from ye-old-poisoned-needle deaths. I thought the point of the OSR was to embrace that.

OSR is a problematic term because it has splintered into groups that do not always get along. The purists believie OSR is D&D retroclones only. Others include old non-D&D games, like Traveller.

A large group has "evolved" old school play, which we see in Gavin Norman's adventure design, Shadowdark, Mothership, His Majesty the Worm and even games like Heart and Spire.

Yochai Gal doesn't really like the term but uses it because that's what we have. NSR is also a term but tends to muddy the waters a bit.

Even modern OSR has a distinct philosophy and play style that is not 5e.