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

[Remathilis]

I was responding to the comment that players in 5e ‘know’ they can beat everything because the game is level capped to the party.

Modern D&D (3-5e) define what is a deadly encounter. In theory,

This still reads to me like a misunderstanding of how OSR type games are played (or at least how I play them).

1st - The level two party can choose to go to level 8 (or a location that has level 8 type creatures), but if there's a "level 8 creature" (Say a mature red dragon) in a room on dungeon level 2 it won't exist as a sudden "Boo - I'm gonna fry you and eat you for not looking through the keyhole" type encounter. It will likely want something from the PCs and offer plenty of clues to its present (e.g. the berserkers nearby worship it, there are huge claw marks by the entrance to its cavern and shed red scales...)

2nd - In the second case (level 8 of the dungeon) the risks are huge and the players should know that - they will be super cautious ... but then they also decided to go somewhere way too dangerous for them! Knowingly. they want to play that kind of game - risk everything on a chance to bring back the big treasures etc. That's of course possible as the power curve in OSR and some older systems tends to be flatter. This is not a design issue though - this is daring players.

3rd - Taking too long, checking everything with 10ft poles is the worst way to do go into a super dangerous area. The random encounter check will get you. A level 8 dungeon might have vermin with 5-6 HD... So move fast, take risks, run away and sneak about and only use up time to check things you're really sure are necessary. The random encounter check always acts as a counterweight to player caution.

This still seems like OS and NS are getting to the same place and claiming that took different routes.

The OS DM decides to design a dungeon with a level of two. He uses monsters appropriate to that level (orcs, gnolls, an ogre, etc) and treasure appropriate to that risk. The OS DM decides also to include one monster wildly OP to the level as a potential RP scenario. He then places it in an appropriate part of the world and gives players hooks and hints that the place exists and approximately what power level it is and lets the PCs decide effectively (we're level 2, we should go to the dungeon the DM telegraphed is for level 2.)

A new school DM decides to create a dungeon for his second level party. He stocks the dungeon with easy, medium and deadly encounters appropriate to level 2, with appropriate treasure, and then gives the players a hook to go there.

In both situations the DM isn't willy nilly designing. There are no mind flayers living next to kobolds, no ogre guarding a vorpal sword. The difference is that the OS DM decides the the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon regardless of what level the PCs are and telegraphs that accordingly and the NS DM decides the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon because level 2 PCs decided to go there. To me, that's a chicken and the egg scenario as long as it ends up with level 2 PCs in a level 2 dungeon.

 

[TiQuinn]

Modern D&D (3-5e) define what is a deadly encounter. In theory,

This still seems like OS and NS are getting to the same place and claiming that took different routes.

The OS DM decides to design a dungeon with a level of two. He uses monsters appropriate to that level (orcs, gnolls, an ogre, etc) and treasure appropriate to that risk. The OS DM decides also to include one monster wildly OP to the level as a potential RP scenario. He then places it in an appropriate part of the world and gives players hooks and hints that the place exists and approximately what power level it is and lets the PCs decide effectively (we're level 2, we should go to the dungeon the DM telegraphed is for level 2.)

A new school DM decides to create a dungeon for his second level party. He stocks the dungeon with easy, medium and deadly encounters appropriate to level 2, with appropriate treasure, and then gives the players a hook to go there.

In both situations the DM isn't willy nilly designing. There are no mind flayers living next to kobolds, no ogre guarding a vorpal sword. The difference is that the OS DM decides the the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon regardless of what level the PCs are and telegraphs that accordingly and the NS DM decides the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon because level 2 PCs decided to go there. To me, that's a chicken and the egg scenario as long as it ends up with level 2 PCs in a level 2 dungeon.

I don’t think this is really a surprise. There should be a convergence of design at some point, even though I’m increasingly uncertain what defines OSR from NSR - I’m much more clear on Retroclones from NSR. The terminology gets a bit twisted around because you also have a difference between the games themselves, the times they were released, and the personalities of some of the players as well. It makes for a very confusing soup.

 

[Aldarc]

All OSR advice works amazingly well with 5E. The only people who don't believe that are the people who refuse to try it and are stuck in their ways.

I don't necessarily agree so I guess that your accusation applies to me. So please tell me more directly about how the only explanation is because I refuse to try the advice in 5e D&D, that I'm just stuck in my ways, and that it's just one of my hang-ups from 3e/4e D&D. You clearly don't mind making condemning generalizations about people who may disagree with you. Come on, Shardstone, please rudely insult me and others some more with your broad brush accusation here.

All of this is to say that I believe that your argument would be better received if you avoided such broad accusations as in the bold that risk making things personal and that you would probably be better off retracting it.

I don’t think this is really a surprise. There should be a convergence of design at some point, even though I’m increasingly uncertain what defines OSR from NSR - I’m much more clear on Retroclones from NSR. The terminology gets a bit twisted around because you also have a difference between the games themselves, the times they were released, and the personalities of some of the players as well. It makes for a very confusing soup.

I'm not actually sure that there has been a convergence of dungeon design. I don't really think that it has been sufficiently demonstrated. It's mostly be a fairly, dare I say shallow, assertion that they are the same because they lack "gotchas" or that the D&D and OSR parties may both be the same level as the dungeon. And it seems motivated by a fairly open, if not embittered, desire to discredit the originality and uniqueness of the OSR and its associated playstyles.

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm not actually sure that there has been a convergence of dungeon design. I don't really think that it has been sufficiently demonstrated. It's mostly be a fairly, dare I say shallow, assertion that they are the same because they lack "gotchas" or that the D&D and OSR parties may both be the same level as the dungeon. And it seems motivated by a fairly open, if not embittered, desire to discredit the originality and uniqueness of the OSR and its associated playstyles.

I think it’s fair to say that there has been an evolution in what is considered “good” dungeon design versus “bad” dungeon design.

Random monster tables in earlier modules often had entries that could pit first level characters against wraiths or ogres, for example. There was often very little context for why monsters were in certain locations and at the time, little in the way of instruction for DMs to make sense of it.

Then consider some of the maps:

(From Palace of the Vampire Queen)

or much later, the Temple of Elemental Evil:

I think most games have moved past elements of this nature unless the intent is to be deliberately goofy.

 

[Mannahnin]

In both situations the DM isn't willy nilly designing. There are no mind flayers living next to kobolds, no ogre guarding a vorpal sword. The difference is that the OS DM decides the the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon regardless of what level the PCs are and telegraphs that accordingly and the NS DM decides the Abandoned Abby is a level 2 dungeon because level 2 PCs decided to go there. To me, that's a chicken and the egg scenario as long as it ends up with level 2 PCs in a level 2 dungeon.

Fair point, though, I don't think this summation is always quite true.

While many old school and OSR DMs do carefully curate and deliberately place every last encounter and treasure in a dungeon, a lot of them also use procedural generation, following Gygax's 1974 and/or Moldvay's 1981 instructions for dungeon stocking. Which tell you to place a few of the most important/special lairs and treasures first, and then to use random tables for the bulk of a level to save effort and time.

When you follow this process, you can get some weird juxtapositions of monsters living next to each other, can find an ogre lair with a vorpal sword, and can find a much higher level monster occasionally on a lower dungeon level (the original 1974 charts in particular do this a LOT, although the AD&D and B/X charts tone it down).

IME most DMs do tweak random results and shift stuff around to make it make more sense- the mind flayers might not be living next to the kobolds- or use the randomness to fuel creativity and force them to come up with explanations they might not otherwise have deliberately designed. Maybe having those two lair areas near each other tells us something about them having a relationship. Perhaps those kobolds work for the mind flayers. Maybe they do so against their will, and are divided into factions where some are loyal to/too scared of the mind flayers to defy them, but others resent them and could be negotiated with and recruited to help the party against them for the promise of freedom.

 

[Belen]

Fair point, though, I don't think this summation is always quite true.

While many old school and OSR DMs do carefully curate and deliberately place every last encounter and treasure in a dungeon, a lot of them also use procedural generation, following Gygax's 1974 and/or Moldvay's 1981 instructions for dungeon stocking. Which tell you to place a few of the most important/special lairs and treasures first, and then to use random tables for the bulk of a level to save effort and time.

When you follow this process, you can get some weird juxtapositions of monsters living next to each other, can find an ogre lair with a vorpal sword, and can find a much higher level monster occasionally on a lower dungeon level (the original 1974 charts in particular do this a LOT, although the AD&D and B/X charts tone it down).

IME most DMs do tweak random results and shift stuff around to make it make more sense- the mind flayers might not be living next to the kobolds- or use the randomness to fuel creativity and force them to come up with explanations they might not otherwise have deliberately designed. Maybe having those two lair areas near each other tells us something about them having a relationship. Perhaps those kobolds work for the mind flayers. Maybe they do so against their will, and are divided into factions where some are loyal to/too scared of the mind flayers to defy them, but others resent them and could be negotiated with and recruited to help the party against them for the promise of freedom.

This is why I do not do traditional dungeons. The locations in my games all relate to the adventure or story. If they go to a pirate base, they face pirates. I am not a fan of dungeons with no explanation for why some creatures may be there.

Now, if it controlled by a mind flayer, then there is an explanation, but I find it rare.

Of course, I tend to cut down on the creature types in my worlds or regions. It often does not make sense for so many species to be competing for the same resources.

 

[Remathilis]

Fair point, though, I don't think this summation is always quite true.

While many old school and OSR DMs do carefully curate and deliberately place every last encounter and treasure in a dungeon, a lot of them also use procedural generation, following Gygax's 1974 and/or Moldvay's 1981 instructions for dungeon stocking. Which tell you to place a few of the most important/special lairs and treasures first, and then to use random tables for the bulk of a level to save effort and time.

When you follow this process, you can get some weird juxtapositions of monsters living next to each other, can find an ogre lair with a vorpal sword, and can find a much higher level monster occasionally on a lower dungeon level (the original 1974 charts in particular do this a LOT, although the AD&D and B/X charts tone it down).

IME most DMs do tweak random results and shift stuff around to make it make more sense- the mind flayers might not be living next to the kobolds- or use the randomness to fuel creativity and force them to come up with explanations they might not otherwise have deliberately designed. Maybe having those two lair areas near each other tells us something about them having a relationship. Perhaps those kobolds work for the mind flayers. Maybe they do so against their will, and are divided into factions where some are loyal to/too scared of the mind flayers to defy them, but others resent them and could be negotiated with and recruited to help the party against them for the promise of freedom.

See that ends up with that weird juxtaposition I was discussing. The AD&D random encounter tables (I will profess no experience with OD&D) tend to keep monsters within a certain band of HD/XP amounts. That can be a wide band, but mind flayers aren't on the level 2 table*. IMHO, that's not much different than a DM who determines a deadly encounter is X amount of XP and a mind flayers is beyond that threshold. Similarly that a relatively low power monster guarding a high power item is Monte Haulism isn't much different than using treasure tables based on PC appropriate treasure. The only difference is that 5e bakes that into the tables and advice, while the OS removes the guardrails and assumes the DM will have the judgement to know what is game wrecking to them.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not actually sure that there has been a convergence of dungeon design. I don't really think that it has been sufficiently demonstrated. It's mostly be a fairly, dare I say shallow, assertion that they are the same because they lack "gotchas" or that the D&D and OSR parties may both be the same level as the dungeon. And it seems motivated by a fairly open, if not embittered, desire to discredit the originality and uniqueness of the OSR and its associated playstyles.

Methinks the poster doth protest too much.

My point is every time something is asserted about the OS movement that "fixes" the problems with modern D&D, you get about a half-dozen people who argue that's not really what the OS movement is about and they don't do it that way. The notion that combat is a fail state, a statement that OS players are making about themselves, has been met with "well, they don't actually mean it the way you're taking it". Or that people crow about how they don't use formulas like CR to create balanced encounters but then insist every encounter they have run has been fair regardless.

I'm not arguing that modern and OS games aren't different. I just think they are less different than the OS movement says they are. Especially those who are avoiding the sins of the past and avoiding gotchas, using appropriate challenges and telegraphing important info the PCs need. Guess what, modern D&D players have been doing that for a while too.

 

[FrozenNorth]

2. Making the former work by proper signalling: As Arylin says, in principal the idea is to give the players enough information they know to avoid or take advantage of those power differentials in a way that's actually, well, interesting. Two issues come up here: first, not every Old School game is as good at spelling this out as others, leading to some of the unpleasant coping mechanisms you reference that existed in such commonality early in the hobby. Second, some of the same people who are attracted to OSR style play sometimes have a weird sort of simulationist-fixation that tells them that providing too much information is "gamist". Even when well meaning their attempt to thread the needle can fail out in sometimes catastrophic ways, especially if they're also resistant to letting PCs back out of things that have proven problematic. To make it clear I'm not saying everyone or even a majority of such GMs are like this, but there are people on this very board who will act like if the players screw up on this, that's entirely on them.

Fair. I would say that certain typical OSR even make a selling point about killing characters. Both DCC and its boosters tend to trumpet « the character funnel » and the fact that many PCs will die so don’t bother to get attached.

 

[Mannahnin]

See that ends up with that weird juxtaposition I was discussing. The AD&D random encounter tables (I will profess no experience with OD&D) tend to keep monsters within a certain band of HD/XP amounts. That can be a wide band, but mind flayers aren't on the level 2 table*. IMHO, that's not much different than a DM who determines a deadly encounter is X amount of XP and a mind flayers is beyond that threshold. Similarly that a relatively low power monster guarding a high power item is Monte Haulism isn't much different than using treasure tables based on PC appropriate treasure. The only difference is that 5e bakes that into the tables and advice, while the OS removes the guardrails and assumes the DM will have the judgement to know what is game wrecking to them.

Mind Flayers aren't on the level II table, but they are on the level VII table. And both level I and level VII monsters can be encountered on dungeon levels 5 and deeper.

I think the difference you're talking about is more one of degree rather than kind. 0E, 1E, and 5E all have tables which can result in seemingly out of place or inappropriately-scaled encounters or treasures. How much to curate that and tweak it to keep it "in bounds" is up to the taste of the DM and group in question, much as you say. 3E and later bake in more guardrails. Just as 1E did compared to OE.

One of the insights I've acquired from the OSR is a willingness to embrace some more randomness and roll with it. To not be as scared of stuff being overpowered.

As a tangential note, I remember as a kid reading the rules for intelligent swords in Expert D&D and in AD&D and thinking these things were amazing but special, and in keeping with Gary's advice in the 1979 DMG to be stingy about treasure and avoid "Monty Haulism", I don't think I ever saw more than one or two (or even a single Vorpal Sword) given out as treasure in the 80s or 90s. My recollection is that myself and a lot of other DMs avoided giving out intelligent swords so as not to deal with their complications or to worry about them being overpowered. But this had the unintended effect of making Fighters and similar martial characters less powerful and special. The treasures are in the books and on the tables so they show up!