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

[Mannahnin]

If the goal is for the players to be members of a team in a group game with different positions then it is better for everybody to be equal levels but with different specifics.

Then characters should start out equal power and should stay equal. Characters who come in later should be different but equal to the characters of the team they are joining.

If the goal is not for characters to be members of a team in a group game but to competitively survive and individually advance in the campaign starting from zero at the beginning of the campaign then there is a different should where it can make sense for there to be differences in levels and for existing characters to be more powerful.

I can be down for this, or down for individual XP and advancement, in a system and context which facilitates character contributions even when they're weaker. In my 5TD / B/X hybrid game I did require new characters to start at 1st, but they were still able to contribute and they caught up relatively quickly, thanks to the way the xp charts work.

For me it's more a matter of personal taste and what a given table wants to emphasize or focus on.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, this seems to be getting sidetracked.

As to the sidetrack, I tend to go with the following two observations:

1. For whatever reason, most people assume that everyone is playing their playstyle in good faith, but can imagine a parade of horribles involving bad faith playstyle when it comes to what other people enjoy playing.

2. If I were to go to a forum and a thread with people who love discussing the joys of manual transmission (stickshift4eva dot com ... although, Rule 34 ... um ...), I might not want to post continuously about how they really should be driving automatics. I mean, I could! But I probably will get the same reactions.

And you know what the definition of insanity is? That's right. Allowing a bard into your party and expecting a different result.

 

[Mannahnin]

And you know what the definition of insanity is? That's right. Allowing a bard into your party and expecting a different result.

...what about posting in a bard's thread?

 

[Staffan]

I can be down for this, or down for individual XP and advancement, in a system and context which facilitates character contributions even when they're weaker.

The best-case scenario I can see for individualized XP given out for specified in-game accomplishments is a West Marches-like context, where parties are ad-hoc groups assembled for individual adventures rather than there being a single "The Party" which is the collective protagonist of the whole campaign. But that is a very specific context, and one I believe to be pretty rare.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The best-case scenario I can see for individualized XP given out for specified in-game accomplishments is a West Marches-like context, where parties are ad-hoc groups assembled for individual adventures rather than there being a single "The Party" which is the collective protagonist of the whole campaign. But that is a very specific context, and one I believe to be pretty rare.

It wasn't that rare at one time, but I'd bet it has been for at least 30 years now.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The best-case scenario I can see for individualized XP given out for specified in-game accomplishments is a West Marches-like context, where parties are ad-hoc groups assembled for individual adventures rather than there being a single "The Party" which is the collective protagonist of the whole campaign. But that is a very specific context, and one I believe to be pretty rare.

You know, I think it would be a good idea for someone to do a deep dive on West Marches. Both the history of the specific term, and the concept in D&D prior to the term.

Given that it's a relatively new term, coined in ...checks .... 2007! .....

Aside- I guess 2007 isn't that recent, is it? The years, they fly by.

Um, well, given that it's a term that was coined coughs this century to describe a style of play that was prominent last century, that would be an interesting topic!

 

[Laurefindel]

I promise you, my PF2 character Melumbivilaroxinek's Diplomacy of +25 and Deception +22 far outshine my own ability to resolve social encounters. Mel makes sir Humphrey seem like an amateur. I, on the other hand, can't talk my way out of a wet paper bag.

yes, hence the "striking a balance between 'diplo-mancy' and 'just award a bonus to good role-play" comment after. It may have been in a following post though...

Not all of us can talk themselves out of a wet paper bag. Heck, most DMs cannot outwit their glibbest player. Nevertheless, most R-P situations are resolved simply using natural exchanges between players and DM, or even between players and other players. A fight however is always played by the rule. So while your Mel can talk himself out of having to pay for a coffee for the rest of his life, most players won't let a bunch of low-level thugs mug them and run away with 3 copper pieces without Initiative being rolled (likely resulting in a bunch of low-level thugs being found dead in an alley the next morning).

And even in Pathfinder, social interaction remains a skill check, not an elaborated system of witty quips and clever comebacks with social AC and hit point equivalents. While the concept of social AC kinda exist as an opposed skill, the concept of social resilience is virtually absent. And to a certain extent, I'm glad such a system is not in place, or at least not used for all situations involving a debate of sort. Otherwise, Melumbivilaroxinek would rule the internets!

 

[payn]

yes, hence the "striking a balance between 'diplo-mancy' and 'just award a bonus to good role-play" comment after. It may have been in a following post though...

Not all of us can talk themselves out of a wet paper bag. Heck, most DMs cannot outwit their glibbest player. Nevertheless, most R-P situations are resolved simply using natural exchanges between players and DM, or even between players and other players. A fight however is always played by the rule. So while your Mel can go about never paying for a coffee in his life, most players won't let a bunch of low-level thugs mug them and run away with 3 copper pieces without Initiative being rolled (likely resulting in a bunch of low-level thugs being found dead in an alley the next morning).

And even in Pathfinder, social interaction remains a skill check, not an elaborated system of witty quips and clever comebacks with social AC and hit point equivalents. While the concept of social AC kinda exist as an opposed skill, the concept of social resilience is virtually absent. And to a certain extent, I'm glad such a system is not in place, or at least not used for all situations involving a debate of sort. Otherwise, Melumbivilaroxinek would rule the internets!

Im playing in the PF1 War for the Crown AP and it has an extensive social system. Its great for noble outings where folks are trying to persuade each other, hide secrets, etc.. This subsystem is only used when you are in a social situation thats pretty clear when its happening. Not every time you speak to an NPC. I think this sort of when the situation arises thing is often missed by folks that dont want a social sub-system at all.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I promise you, my PF2 character Melumbivilaroxinek's Diplomacy of +25 and Deception +22 far outshine my own ability to resolve social encounters. Mel makes sir Humphrey seem like an amateur. I, on the other hand, can't talk my way out of a wet paper bag.

Honestly, I think you can win every social encounter just by free-style roleplaying for a while, and then saying to the NPC ...

"I noticed you keep calling me buddy. You can't even pronounce my name, can you?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

To correct the record, Frostmaiden is largely a sandbox early while the party explores the setting and gains some levels, then gradually funnels into more of an adventure path later.

Your proposition that "fi the system is going to leave such a wide-open loophole where I can game it so as to advance my character while doing nothing, I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of that" is bizarre. It's predicated on the assumption that the player is more interested in advancing their character power and ensuring their survival than on PLAYING THE GAME.


If you said this at my table the reply would be simple- "A session of adventuring. If you want to stay in town and take no risks, why did I waste my time prepping an adventure and why did you waste yours coming to my house? If you don't want to play the game, why did you agree to?"

If the group has agreed to play an adventure game and you come to my table attempting to subvert that goal and obstruct play, we'll have an out of character discussion about our shared goals. If they're not actually compatible, you'll not be a part of the game.


I don't know what point you were trying to make here. My statement about the "vast majority" of gamers was simply saying that people play D&D to PLAY D&D, not to say their character sits around town while everyone else adventures. Even open world/STRICT TIME RECORDS games like Gary talks about in the 1E DMG, where some characters may be left in town healing or training while others adventure, aren't games where players are just CHOOSING to have their characters sit out of the action because they'd rather not risk their characters. Gary's expectation was that players still want to play, so if a given character is FORCED into downtime (or chooses it for something like magical research at the COST of being out of play), the player would almost inevitably play using a secondary character or henchman so they didn't have to sit out of the fun!


Come on. You're a more experienced DM than that. You know that characters who try to hide in the back still take on a share of the risk, and if they act truly cowardly and don't contribute, the other characters will tend to kick them out or give them a lesser share of the rewards.

Same as in 1E. Monster XP is divided among everyone who participated in fighting the monster, no matter how much or how little. Treasure xp is divided based on how the PCs divide the treasure, and that's almost always equal shares, even if PCs take on varying levels of risk. The Fighter at the front tends to take on greater risks, but OTOH their player also tends to get to DO more.

Modern D&D, and especially milestone leveling, really wants everyone involve to get the same benefits at the same time, regardless of how much effort any individual PC or player puts in. While some of this was present in older editions as you say, different xp tables encouraged individual xp, and individual xp encourages individual effort.