D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[KYRON45]

There's no inherent verisimilitude to that. This is an opinion that really requires justification in the sense of explaining what could possibly be considered "verisimilitude"?

There's only one genre of fiction I'm aware of where killing things is always going to make you more powerful, and that is, hilariously, Video Game Isekai, which of course, is directly based on MMORPGs, which are inspired by D&D and so in a flat circle. So what is verisimilitude to? It sure isn't fantasy fiction.

I think it's verisimilitude to itself. Which is circular logic of a strange kind.

Ironically that has more verisimilitude to most fantasy fiction than what you're proposing.

It genuinely sounds like you're video-game-izing D&D. I don't mean that as an insult, but that seems to be the logic you're presenting re: XP.

Aren't video games just D&Dised digital games?

 

[Reynard]

There's no inherent verisimilitude to that. This is an opinion that really requires justification in the sense of explaining what could possibly be considered "verisimilitude"?

There's only one genre of fiction I'm aware of where killing things is always going to make you more powerful, and that is, hilariously, Video Game Isekai, which of course, is directly based on MMORPGs, which are inspired by D&D and so in a flat circle. So what is verisimilitude to? It sure isn't fantasy fiction.

I think it's verisimilitude to itself. Which is circular logic of a strange kind.

Ironically that has more verisimilitude to most fantasy fiction than what you're proposing.

It genuinely sounds like you're video-game-izing D&D. I don't mean that as an insult, but that seems to be the logic you're presenting re: XP.

I especially like the way you ignored the things I said make sense for XP before you made such a weird claim. What video games? I mean, besides the ones based on D&D?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Though to be frank, I’ve seen many compelling combat system but very few social system that I liked. It’s hard to strike a balance between « diplomancy » and « just award bonus for good role play »

I think the major issue with 90% of "social combat" or elaborate social systems I've seen is that, really, most social interactions aren't conflicts in any meaningful way, and shouldn't be treated as such, but games which have a social combat system or the like typically want to thrust it into every possible place it could be used, so it tends to become quite tiring and overused, and usually undeveloped, rules-wise - like very rarely is it supported in the way combat is (Exalted perhaps being an exception).

If these sort of social rules were either much better supported mechanically, or probably better yet, reserved for serious conflicts which could go either way and where there's something at stake, and people can't just say "No lol" and walk away with zero consequences, they'd be a lot better.

Aren't video games just D&Dised digital games?

No? What's that even supposed to mean.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Certainly even with the slightest bit of real modernity, and as teenage boys, my group realized this in like, 1991 or so. It felt kind of messed up to kill a bunch of people who you could take prisoner or the like, and then you get the awkwardness of D&D having no real rules or ideas or even spells for dealing with prisoners, because the initial conceit was basically "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out".

Prisoner taking can be a problem in a lot of games well outside the D&D-sphere. As soon as your away from short-range missions where you can march the prisoners back to authorities, there's going to be problems about traveling with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agree with the latter, though not as much with the former. Even in B2, the iconic example of the wild frontier module, the setup is that Chaos is threatening and encroaching on a static border, rather than as in the American West where it was "civilization" which was expanding.


Largely agree.


Heinlein would have strongly disagreed with your translation. He definitely didn't believe that might makes right, nor was that what he was positing in the book. (we've had long discussions about the book elsewhere).




In the sense that you're using the term "narrative", xp for treasure or for killing monsters are equally narrativist. They're conceits of the game to incentivize characters to engage in a specific style of play. Advancement by the chunkier "number of sessions played" count is just a less granular version of the same thing. The behavior being rewarded is basically "adventuring" in both cases.

In real life experience in fighting does improve certain fighting skills (though it often comes at the cost of PTSD and other long term wounds, tangible or intangible), but training is a much bigger part of it ("the more sweat left on the training field, the less blood lost on the battlefield" I believe was one of Col. Hackworth's mottos). And of course no amount of fighting or loot collecting will make you better at academic skills or picking locks.

If you want "learning through doing", you'd want an advancement system more like BRP. When you successfully use a skill you get a check mark next to it, then at the end of a session/rest period/downtime you get to make a test on each such skill to see if it advances.

It's very abstract, and of course it incentives a certain style of play, but at least the PCs are doing something in the world and getting xp for it. What does milestone incentive? Following the path and not dying as far as I can tell. You don't even have to be there when level up happens!

 

[KYRON45]

I think the major issue with 90% of "social combat" or elaborate social systems I've seen is that, really, most social interactions aren't conflicts in any meaningful way, and shouldn't be treated as such, but games which have a social combat system or the like typically want to thrust it into every possible place it could be used, so it tends to become quite tiring and overused, and usually undeveloped, rules-wise - like very rarely is it supported in the way combat is (Exalted perhaps being an exception).

If these sort of social rules were either much better supported mechanically, or probably better yet, reserved for serious conflicts which could go either way and where there's something at stake, and people can't just say "No lol" and walk away with zero consequences, they'd be a lot better.


No? What's that even supposed to mean.

Most video games have AC, and HP, and skill trees and level progression.....didn't D&D do that first?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah this is precisely it. Unless XP is encouraging something specific and not common, behaviour-wise, it's just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers.

I've occasionally used it as a "counter" in games with simpler experience systems (i.e. a slightly more complex advance-per-X-sessions system) but even then it was big chunky numbers.

 

[Reynard]

It's very abstract, and of course it incentives a certain style of play, but at least the PCs are doing something in the world and getting xp for it. What does milestone incentive? Following the path and not dying as far as I can tell. You don't even have to be there when level up happens!

Mile stones don't have to be points on the adventure path. Some folks use player defined, character focused milestones. Which I still think should grant some amount of XP rather than serving for leveling, though.

 

[Reynard]

I've occasionally used it as a "counter" in games with simpler experience systems (i.e. a slightly more complex advance-per-X-sessions system) but even then it was big chunky numbers.

The primary value of counting XP for leveling is it allows the players to decide their own pace of leveling and measure for themselves risks versus rewards. Player agency is the most important aspect of RPG play, IMO, and counting XP is one of those things that increases player agency.

Also, we are WAY off topic...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I especially like the way you ignored the things I said make sense for XP before you made such a weird claim. What video games? I mean, besides the ones based on D&D?

Most video games? Perhaps the majority of videogames now have XP-based advancement schemes of various kinds, where arbitrary activities can be repeated to increase the power of your character. Even stuff like Call of Duty does.

My point is solely re: verisimilitude. It's a term with a meaning.

the appearance of being true or real.

What is it that older D&D-style XP seems "true or real" to? I ask because it's clearly neither real life, nor fantasy fiction. And there is stuff that does work that way but it's all either videogames or fiction about videogames.

Prisoner taking can be a problem in a lot of games well outside the D&D-sphere. As soon as your away from short-range missions where you can march the prisoners back to authorities, there's going to be problems about traveling with them.

I think it tends to be a much smaller problem in other games, even other fantasy RPGs, because:

A) D&D tends much more towards the PCs fighting large numbers of weak, humanoid, intelligent, open-to-negotiation foes than most fantasy RPGs.

B) D&D has absolutely no tools for dealing with prisoners. Many other games have at least some. The alignment system doesn't help matters here either.

Most video games have AC, and HP, and skill trees and level progression.....didn't D&D do that first?

AC? No. Almost no videogames use AC, what are you talking about?

HP? Only certain kinds of RPGs do it in the way D&D does. Most games don't.

Skill trees? No. Videogames did that long before D&D did.

Level progression? Sure, that's derivation from D&D that's very common in videogames though rarely features the near-linear growth in character power most editions of D&D have (but not never, either).