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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

My goal is just to create a logically consistent imaginary world for players to interact with through their PCs. Having them always be equally powerful regardless of circumstance and replacement isn't logically consistent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

First of all, "protagonist" is a narrative term that I don't think should be assumed to describe the PCs. This doesn't have to be a storytelling game, and in my preference any story is emergent and after the fact.

Secondly, even if you're right about that style of game being rare in the wild, who cares? Popularity only matters if we're discussing finding players or selling product. It has no relevance to any other TTRPG topic that I can see.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!

I agree. Makes you wonder about the motivation of those who created the term.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

And that's important because...?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!

The whole concept of social combat in D&D falls apart anyway when you consider that it's generally considered bad form to use social checks to change the behavior of PCs, yet somehow the same action works just fine on an NPC. Not very logically consistent.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I played in several such open table games during the pandemic, online. Three of them for extended periods. I tried running one as well, though in practice mine broke down into two steady regular groups in the same shared world/local area, occasionally bumping elbows and racing each other to different treasures.

Even without an open table, though, pre-milestone D&D has classically used xp as an incentive to encourage player attendance in a regular, fixed group. You don't show up? No xp for you.

Of course, some folks say that feels punitive in practice rather than rewarding for the regular attendees, and that they don't want their players to stress over missed xp and have the feeling of "falling behind" become a DISincentive to attend and catch up. A concept which was never an issue back in the old days of level drain, magic effects which bumped someone UP a level, and of level loss for death and being Raised, of course. Because different players' xp totals would naturally vary.

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!

I'm trying to remember now whether you made such a thread, and wondering why you didn't include a link, if so.

To be fair, Ben Robbins coined the term to describe his specific individual campaign, of that name, which he ran in 3rd edition from 2001-2003. And his campaign differed in a few ways from the campaign format Gary described in the 1E DMG. For example, Ben's used point crawl mechanics for overland travel rather than hex crawl.

A number of folks have retroactively associated the two, but they're not exactly the same thing.

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.

I don't think it's "modern D&D" as much as it is SOME modern groups which prefer to ditch the bookkeeping of individual xp tracking. Remember that the baseline expectation is experience points, in every edition published to date.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm trying to remember now whether you made such a thread, and wondering why you didn't include a link, if so.

To be fair, Ben Robbins coined the term to describe his specific individual campaign, of that name, which he ran in 3rd edition from 2001-2003. And his campaign differed in a few ways from the campaign format Gary described in the 1E DMG. For example, Ben's used point crawl mechanics for overland travel rather than hex crawl.

A number of folks have retroactively associated the two, but they're not exactly the same thing.

I've never posted about that topic. I know! Can you imagine that there's something I haven't written too much about already?

But yes, Ben Robbins did use the term to specifically discuss his campaign and that he shared it in 2007, but I would argue that West Marches as a concept, especially the three principles*, is pretty much the Gygaxian early D&D play model.

At this point, I would argue that West Marches is a term that I see used to refer to that playing style. But maybe I'm wrong!

Someone really should do a deep dive. Preferably with footnote. Maybe some jokes.



* The three principles-

1. There was no regular time: every session was scheduled by the players on the fly.
2. There was no regular party: each game had different players drawn from a pool of around 10-14 people.
3. There was no regular plot: The players decided where to go and what to do. It was a sandbox game in the sense that’s now used to describe video games like Grand Theft Auto, minus the missions. There was no mysterious old man sending them on quests. No overarching plot, just an overarching environment.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

My goal is just to create a logically consistent imaginary world for players to interact with through their PCs. Having them always be equally powerful regardless of circumstance and replacement isn't logically consistent.

I don't think your premise is valid. I don't think being of equal level is the same thing as equal power. Even apart from different races and classes being stronger or weaker, varying ability scores and spells and found magic items mean PCs always vary in power, even if they're the same level.

First of all, "protagonist" is a narrative term that I don't think should be assumed to describe the PCs.

Gary Gygax, DMG p80-81 wrote:

It is a game in which the continuing epic is the most meaningful portion. It becomes an entity in which at least some of the characters seem to be able to survive for an indefinite time, and characters who have shorter spans of existence are linked one to the other by blood or purpose. These personae put up with the frustrations, the setbacks, and the tragedies because they aim for and can reasonably expect to achieve adventure, challenge, wealth, glory and more. If player characters are not of the same stamp as Conan, they also appreciate that they are in effect writing their own adventures and creating their own legends, not merely reliving those of someone else's creation.

Yet because the player character is all-important, he or she must always--or nearly always - have a chance, no matter how small, a chance of somehow escaping what otherwise would be inevitable destruction. Many will not be able to do so, but the escapes of those who do are what the fabric of the game is created upon. These adventures become the twice-told tales and legends of the campaign. The fame (or infamy) of certain characters gives lustre to the campaign and enjoyment to player and DM alike as the parts grow and are entwined to become a fantastic history of a never-was world where all of us would wish to live if we could.

Someone once sharply criticized the concept of the saving throw as ridiculous. Could a man chained to a rock, they asked, save himself from the blast of a red dragon's breath? Why not?, I replied. If you accept fire breathing dragons, why doubt the chance to reduce the damage sustained from such a creature's attack? Imagine that the figure, at the last moment,of course, manages to drop beneath the licking flames, or finds a crevice in which to shield his or her body, or succeeds in finding a way to be free of the fetters. Why not? The mechanics of combat or the details of the injury caused by some horrible weapon are not the key to heroic fantasy and adventure games. It is the character, how he or she becomes involved in the combat, how he or she somehow escapes ~ or fails to escape- the mortal threat which is important to the enjoyment and longevity of the game.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think the line between "protagonist" and the way Gary talked about characters is pretty thin.

I agree. Makes you wonder about the motivation of those who created the term.

Really? Why don't you just revisit Ben Robbins' posts about it?

Grand Experiments: West Marches

West Marches was a game I ran for a little over two years. It was designed to be pretty much the diametric opposite of the normal weekly game: There was no regular time: every session was scheduled by the players on the fly. There was no regular party: each game had different players drawn f

arsludi.lamemage.com

 

[GothmogIV]

Make believe violence, with the buffer of fantasy--and often committed in the pursuit of the good (like, good characters fighting evil)--doesn't bother me at all. But I do not like real-life violence, having seen enough of it during my time in the military, in my job as a teacher, and in my crazy country (USA). I can't watch a movie where someone gets their face ripped off by a man in a mask, but make the ripper a werewolf? Doesn't bother me a bit. Usually.
I ran an modified Avernus campaign last year, and my players leaned a bit into being evil. I hated it. We are playing DCC right now, and the party is...let's say amoral. Not my favorite. Give me heroes fighting the darkness!

 

[Thomas Shey]

And that's important because...?

Micah, go take it up with someone else. The degree of prickliness about this is just tiresome.