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

[Micah Sweet]

Unless everyone is sitting on their hands all game, they're doing so with one that's time based too. They're just not micromanaging it. In practice all that sort of advancement does is cutting out unnecessary bookkeeping.

As I said, experience can serve a purpose if you're trying to incentivize certain types of behavior and players may not otherwise lean into that behavior. Otherwise, its just pointless bookkeeping.

Pointless bookkeeping to you. Please refeain from insulting the playstyles of others. And consider this: the whole group levels at once with milestone, regardless of who did what and how much. All you have to do is make sure your PC is alive when it happens. It is a pacing mechanic with no connection, even tenuous, to the setting or the characters living in it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's your choice but it isn't "narrative". You might be able to argue its "gamist", but so is experience points and levels in the first place.

Xp and levels are necessary abstractions. Milestone isn't.

 

[Reynard]

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

Fine. "Internally consistent with the fiction of the game." And in this case, that means you have to DO stuff, and succeed at it, in order to gain experience that elevates your capabilities.

But, again, that isn't the most important part of counting XP. The important part is that is is about agency.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'd argue that's just a version of what I've referred to as "incentivizing behavior", and I've acknowledged its the one functional purpose D&D style experience awards.

(Also, I think it at least borders on-topic since its one of the things that can push a game more toward combat and killing. Its not the only thing that does, but if people care about advancement at all and its specifically killing/fighting things that gives the biggest yield there, you'll see more of it).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Xp and levels are necessary abstractions. Milestone isn't.

Sorry mate, that's not a rational argument, that's irrational opinion. XP isn't a necessary abstraction, neither are levels. They're entirely optional abstractions, as countless RPGs show. Milestones are the same thing - an optional abstraction. You can like them or dislike them, but they're all equally necessary/unnecessary and equally abstract.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fine. "Internally consistent with the fiction of the game." And in this case, that means you have to DO stuff, and succeed at it, in order to gain experience that elevates your capabilities.

But, again, that isn't the most important part of counting XP. The important part is that is is about agency.

Ok thank you, now I understand your position a lot better. And I think it's important to make it it clear that it's internally consistent with the game itself rather than fantasy fiction or the like, because it's distinct from the common verisimilitude and is a different and honestly better justification than verisimilitude in a more general sense.

It's not one that's very compelling for every group, but it will be compelling for some groups.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Pointless bookkeeping to you.

Until you can explain better what point it serves outside of the one I've acknowledge, I don't feel an obligation to qualify that. If you aren't using it to incentivize something, D&D style itemized experience is pointless.

Please refeain from insulting the playstyles of others. And consider this: the whole group levels at once with milestone, regardless of who did what and how much. All you have to do is make sure your PC is alive when it happens. It is a pacing mechanic with no connection, even tenuous, to the setting or the characters living in it.

The gap between when people levelled has been nearly unitary for most of D&D's history. Any difference there largely vanished when separate experience tables vanished. In the cases where it wasn't it usually made no sense because it had to do with experience award categories that some classes and types benefited from and others didn't that were intrinsically easier to do. If you wait around for me to think that's ever a virtue, you'll be waiting quite a while.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Xp and levels are necessary abstractions. Milestone isn't.

Given there are games that get by without either of those first two, want to rephrase that?

 

[KYRON45]

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).

In a video game where the player is trying to cause damage to an opponent; some form of AC is in play.

In a video game where if you hit the opponent enough times HP are in play.

D&D has ascribed certain level progression bonuses since the beginning of its existence.

Zelda, Mega Man, Diablo, even RTSs like Starcraft. War Craft, Call of duty, Fort nite....none of these games have AC/HP/Skill progressions?

 

[Thomas Shey]

In a video game where the player is trying to cause damage to an opponent; some form of AC is in play.

Not in any way that resembles the D&D usage (or at least not necessarily so). There may be a defense value, but that doesn't have to have anything to do with armor (which can be represented in other ways).

In a video game where if you hit the opponent enough times HP are in play.

Again, not necessarily in a D&D style where it varies over time significantly.