Consequence and Reward in RPGs


I like to compare trends in the game industry as a whole with individual segments, such as RPGs. Often what’s happening “out there” will turn up in the individual segments, if it hasn’t already.



The most striking trends in hobby games is the movement from games of consequence to games of reward. Players in hobby games in the past have been expected to earn what they received, but more and more in hobby games we’re seeing games that reward players for participation. This is a general trend in our society, where schoolkids expect rewards for participation rather than for achieving excellence, and in fact excellence is sometimes not allowed!

Reward-based games have always been with us via party games, and to a lesser extent family games. Virtually no one cares who wins a party game, and all of these games tend to be very simple and fully accessible to non-gamers. Mass-market games are much more reward-based then consequence-based. Hobby gamers might call them “not serious”.

A reward-based game is more like a playground than an organized competition, and the opposition in reward-based games tends to be weak/inconsequential/nonexistent.

Home video “save games” have always tended to make video games a “you can’t lose” proposition. We’re moving beyond that.

With free-to-play video games dominating the mobile market and a strong influence in other markets, designers reward players so that they’ll play the game long enough to decide to spend money in it. We see players who blame the game if they fail, who expect to be led around by the hand, even in games that people purchase.

Tabletop RPGs generally involve an unspoken pact between the players and the GM, so that the players can have fun and not have to worry too much about losing. But the game tends to be more enjoyable when there’s a possibility of failure - the triumphs are sweeter. The co-creator of D&D (Gary Gygax) put it this way in one of his last publications (Hall of Many Panes) "...a good campaign must have an element of danger and real risk or else it is meaningless - death walks at the shoulder of all adventurers, and that is the true appeal of the game."

Classic games involve conflict. Many so-called games nowadays do not involve conflict, and there are role-playing "games" that are storytelling exercises without much opposition.

Reflections of this trend in RPGs often involve abundant healing and ways to save characters from death, such as the ridiculous Revivify spell, usable by a mere fifth level cleric in D&D Fifth Edition, that brings back the dead on the field of battle.

35 years ago, a young player GMed his first game for our shared-characters campaign. He really wanted to ensure the players had a good time - so he gave out lots of magic items. We wanted players to earn what they received, so myself and the other lead GM waved our hands after the adventure and most of those items disappeared.

I’m a senior citizen, in my roots a wargamer, and I prefer games of consequence. But that's not where the world is headed.

contributed by Lewis Pulsipher
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
1st edition D&D was designed around creating a world where the Players were challenged to survive, 3rd edition was where it shifted to trying to create a game, thought 3e was still pretty world oriented. 4th and 5th edition are about a game where Players are given a carrot on a stick to keep them playing and aren't expected to face a serious challenge.
1st AD&D is populated with such creatures as ear seekers, rot grubs, mimics, lurkers above, trappers and rust monsters - none of which make any sense as part of a world, and all of which are purely game devices, for disrupting player expectations (about chests, floors, ceilings, listening at doors, searching bodies, etc).

Modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness or Tomb of Horrors are 100% game. They have no in-world logic to them.

Not to mention, the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.

Instead of spurious claims about who was "serious" and who is not, let's talk about how the goals and expectations of mainstream RPGs have changed over the past 40-odd years. That might actually be a worthwhile conversation, although it requires acknowledging that there's not one single thing that counts as RPGing - which some posters seem to find hard to do.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
A lot of discussion of consequences seems to focus on consequences to the PCs, which take place in the fiction. But those consequences are purely imaginary. From the point of view of gameplay, surely the relevant consequences are those that happen in the real world, to the players.

In classic D&D there are more ways for the numbers on a PC sheet to get smaller (level drain, magic items failing saving throws, permanent PC death requiring generation of a new PC, etc). But what is the significance of this for the player? If s/he is still allowed to roll up a new PC and join in the dungeon-delving, what has s/he lost?

If it's hardcore Old School (which Lew Pulsipher certainly is, judging by his old WD columns) and she's rolling up a new 1st level PC to play alongside 6th levellers then she's lost a fair bit. :D
 

pemerton

Legend
If it's hardcore Old School (which Lew Pulsipher certainly is, judging by his old WD columns) and she's rolling up a new 1st level PC to play alongside 6th levellers then she's lost a fair bit.
Sure, and I noticed the smiley - but even then, the loss mightn't be that harsh. Depending on the XP and treasure distribution approach taken, that 1st level PC might gain levels fairly quickly. And for a good chunk of the game (eg a lot of exploration activities, and the social part of the game) level is not really a factor in resolution. (Magic items can be more important - so the campaign's practices around "inheritance" from PC to PC might be quite important.)

To pick a stark contrast, bringing a 1st level PC into the final segment of a contemporary 3E/PF-type dungeon crawl (or even a more combat-oriented classic adventure like the Giants, or WPM) will be basically hopeless: no chance of making the DCs, no chance of contributing meaningfully to combat.

As an aside: an interesting bit of Gygax's DMG (or, actually, two interesting bits - because he splits the discussion over the introductory section, and then "conducting the game" 100-odd pages in) is the discussion of what level of PC an experienced player is allowed to introduce into the game. He seems to have realised that the replay value of those very low levels (especially 1st level) can be limited.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Funny thing is, Raise Dead in the 1e DMG is EXACTLY the same price as it is in 3e - 5000 gp.
True, but have you checked Restoration? :)

Note that clerics didn't have to tithe, although paladins were giving up 10%.

But, the thing is, I'm kinda confused. I'm told that the point of play in 1e was to get the treasure, more than kill the monster. So, if you're getting the treasure, where is it going? Doesn't that mean that most of your XP is coming from treasure? So, a 5th level character with about 30000 xp, has likely amassed about 20000 gp. Sure, it cost him 15k in training, fair enough, but, that still leaves 5k left over.
To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.

Now, in all fairness I'm not sure how many groups ever used the roleplay-penalty rules as written, but the 1500 x level was likely common enough.

And while our intrepid hero might well earn another 20-30K by 6th level 9K of that's going straight into training; and by then maybe she's looking to start saving up for her stronghold a few levels hence.

The idea that a group couldn't afford a raise dead? Seriously? Individual PC's could afford it. And, the notion that parties didn't find the treasure in modules is simply not true. Go back and read those modules. The majority of treasure isn't hidden. It's right there to be found. The overwhelming majority of the treasure in modules is not hidden at all.
Not only have I read nearly all of those modules*, I've both DMed and played in quite a few of them...and I'd take a rough guess that the average scoop rate based on what's available overall is 75% at best. Sure, in some adventures the party cleans up, but in others they miss more than they find.

* - some years ago I decided to try and collect them all (the real versions, not pdf); I've now got about 90% of them - along with a bunch of Judges' Guild and other stuff - and with one or two exceptions what's left are pretty hard targets that I'll either never see or never be able to afford.

Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Lan-"and in the session I just finished running an hour ago the party lost through failed item saves wa-ay more treasure than they found"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
1st AD&D is populated with such creatures as ear seekers, rot grubs, mimics, lurkers above, trappers and rust monsters - none of which make any sense as part of a world, and all of which are purely game devices, for disrupting player expectations (about chests, floors, ceilings, listening at doors, searching bodies, etc).
Ear seekers and rot grubs could easily just be a couple of particularly dangerous fantasy-world insect types. Trappers aren't that much of a stretch from some creatures found in our own real world e.g. venus flytrap. But I'll concede on lurkers, mimics and rust monsters...and piercers, for all that...as being more gamist than anything else.

Modules like White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness or Tomb of Horrors are 100% game. They have no in-world logic to them.
I'll give you Tomb of Horrors, as it was really never intended to be anything more than a pure gamist challenge in the first place for some of Gygax's players. White Plume...it's bizarre, but in a fantasy world it's not out of line and I don't see it as being nearly as game-y as ToH. Ghost Tower is also bizarre - it has some very game-first elements within it and some other elements that could really work well in any dungeon. It was written as a tournament module and though it wasn't really converted that well for open play I sure had a blast (and so did the players) when I ran it a few years back. Good times!

Not to mention, the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.
They're of that era in real-world time, but they're more of the 2e era in design and expected play/DM style.

Instead of spurious claims about who was "serious" and who is not, let's talk about how the goals and expectations of mainstream RPGs have changed over the past 40-odd years. That might actually be a worthwhile conversation, although it requires acknowledging that there's not one single thing that counts as RPGing - which some posters seem to find hard to do.
I've been trying to do that - talk about how the most mainsteam of games (D&D) has changed in its rewards and consequences over the last 40-odd years - in follow-up to the OP which was also trying to do the same.

To pick a stark contrast, bringing a 1st level PC into the final segment of a contemporary 3E/PF-type dungeon crawl (or even a more combat-oriented classic adventure like the Giants, or WPM) will be basically hopeless: no chance of making the DCs, no chance of contributing meaningfully to combat.

As an aside: an interesting bit of Gygax's DMG (or, actually, two interesting bits - because he splits the discussion over the introductory section, and then "conducting the game" 100-odd pages in) is the discussion of what level of PC an experienced player is allowed to introduce into the game. He seems to have realised that the replay value of those very low levels (especially 1st level) can be limited.
1e and 5e (and to some extent 2e) share one important thing: the game remains playable with a much greater level range within the party than 3e* or 4e will tolerate.

* - I'm lumping PF in with 3e as for these purposes they're close enough to the same.

That said, I don't start everyone over at 1st level once things get rolling. I usually set a "floor" that slowly rises as the party's overall level goes up. In the two parties I've got going in my game right now the floor is 6th in one (party levels are 6-10) and 4th in the other (range currently is 4-8). 1e can handle a 4-level range within a party quite well. 3e or 4e? Not so much...

Lan-"if you want modules with highly variable amounts of (il)logic attached, check out 1978-1981 era Judges' Guild offerings"-efan
 

S'mon

Legend
Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Gygax gave no official progression rate recommendation, AIR it's anecdotal from an interview with him.

Moldvay Basic suggests at least one PC should hit 2nd level after 3 sessions "or give more treasure". Mentzer suggests a guideline 5 sessions to level at least after the low levels, which would be 10 level ups in a year of weekly play, slightly faster but close to Gygax's anecdotal AIR "Name Level (8 levels) in a year, then a couple each year thereafter".
 

S'mon

Legend
1e and 5e (and to some extent 2e) share one important thing: the game remains playable with a much greater level range within the party than 3e* or 4e will tolerate.

Very true. For 3e/PF & 4e I keep PCs within 2 levels, or even just use a Party Level. Classic, 1e and even moreso 5e work great with a range of levels, which has major advantages for continuity of play. One of my 5e Wilderlands players has an 18th level Barbarian, played up from 1st level over the past 2.5 years. If I had to bring in 2-3 more 18th level world-shaking superheroes to accompany him every time he adventured the game would collapse (& in fact I had to put it on hiatus for awhile before I realised this). As it is he is accompanied by a Barb-15 Dragonborn PC, and has just met a new PC - a Level 8 Wizard. :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pemerton

Legend
To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.
You are using the wrong levels: as per DMG p 86, "The level of the aspiring character should be computed at current (not to be gained) level." Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s figure of 15,000 is correct, assuming a "roleplay" factor of 1: 1+2+3+4 = 10, x 1500 = 15,000 gp.

Ghost Tower is also bizarre - it has some very game-first elements within it and some other elements that could really work well in any dungeon. It was written as a tournament module and though it wasn't really converted that well for open play I sure had a blast (and so did the players) when I ran it a few years back. Good times!
I didn't say it was a bad module. My point was only that it is a counterexample (one of several) to the "game"/"world" dichotomy drawn by [MENTION=6756765]Rygar[/MENTION].

pemerton said:
the Dragonlance modules that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has already referred to belong to the 1st ed AD&D era.
They're of that era in real-world time, but they're more of the 2e era in design and expected play/DM style.
This seems like the worst sort of projection of the present onto the past!

At the time the DL modules were written there was no 2nd ed or "2nd ed era". They were written, and published, and played, under the 1st ed rules, years before 2nd ed was written and published. They are an important part of the evidence for what constituted 1st ed AD&D play, and they show that dungeon crawling in the classic mode was only one component of the full range of play.
[MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] himself recognised the breadth of playstyles right back in his White Dwarf columns from the late 70s and early 80s. He had (and still seems to have) strong views about his preferred way to play, but he never made the mistake of thinking that it was the only way to play D&D/RPGs.
 

Hussar

Legend
True, but have you checked Restoration? :)

To get from 1st to 5th (thus training into 2-3-4-5) is going to cost a lot more than 15K if one follows the 1e DMG to the letter. Even assuming perfect roleplay (thus no penalties) the training will be 1500 per level being trained into each time (so here it's 3K + 4.5K + 6K + 7.5K = 21K) and if there's any penalties for poor roleplay etc. then a multiplier hits the training costs for that level on a x2 to x4 scale based on the DM's judgement.[

Now, in all fairness I'm not sure how many groups ever used the roleplay-penalty rules as written, but the 1500 x level was likely common enough.

IIRC, it's 1500 gpxthe level you were, not your new level. So, it's 1500 gp to go from 1st to 2nd, not 3000.
/snip
Not only have I read nearly all of those modules*, I've both DMed and played in quite a few of them...and I'd take a rough guess that the average scoop rate based on what's available overall is 75% at best. Sure, in some adventures the party cleans up, but in others they miss more than they find.

* - some years ago I decided to try and collect them all (the real versions, not pdf); I've now got about 90% of them - along with a bunch of Judges' Guild and other stuff - and with one or two exceptions what's left are pretty hard targets that I'll either never see or never be able to afford.

Also, I looked through my DMG this evening and couldn't find where Gygax suggests it'll take about 50 sessions to get to name level - have you got a page reference for that?

Lan-"and in the session I just finished running an hour ago the party lost through failed item saves wa-ay more treasure than they found"-efan

IIRC, he talks about hitting name level in about a year of play. I am not sure about the page level. A quick google search turned up an article on Dragonsfoot which quoted Gygax in '75 saying that there was an 8th level magic user after 8 months of play. Take that for what you wish.

But, again, I really disagree with the idea that the PC's lose out on much of the treasure in adventures. Those published adventures didn't exactly hide the treasure that well and considering the point of play is to amass the treasure, then if the party is missing 40% of the treasure in an adventure, they aren't playing very well.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think this is an excellent post.

The other thing I would say needs to be kept in mind is: 1st edition D&D was designed around creating a world where the Players were challenged to survive, 3rd edition was where it shifted to trying to create a game, thought 3e was still pretty world oriented. 4th and 5th edition are about a game where Players are given a carrot on a stick to keep them playing and aren't expected to face a serious challenge.

There's a lot of signals that the goal today is creating a game, not a world. Without even getting into the mechanics (Some of which have been discussed endlessly), look at the changes to the flavor of the game. The "Legendary Heroes" aspect has been slowly removed (Tensor, Bigby, Mordenkainen), Dinosaurs went from being named Dinosaurs to being anime-style names, you don't have to worry about laws of physics (Underwater fireballs, Lightning bolts hitting Platemail, or Monks knocking over the Tarrasque).

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons described a world where Players were placed to survive, Dungeons and Dragons describes a game where Players are placed to enjoy a non-stop series of rewards with little risk. IMO it's a hugely negative change and why I ultimately went back to Pathfinder.

LOL. Funny how people want to claim things for AD&D, but, ignore what's actually in the books:

1e DMG page 9 said:
As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-thon-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.
 

pemerton

Legend
IIRC, he talks about hitting name level in about a year of play.
The nearest I could find was this, on pp 58, 112:

If your players wish to spend most of their time visiting other planes (and this could come to pass after a year or more of play) then you will be hard pressed unless you rely upon other game systems to fill the gaps. . . .

While it might seem highly unlikely to those who have not been involved in fantasy adventure gaming for an extended period of time, after the flush of excitement wears off - perhaps a few months or a year, depending on the intensity of play - some participants will become bored and move to other gaming forms, returning to your campaign only occasionally. Shortly thereafter even your most dedicated players will ococcasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges. It is possible, however, for you to devise a campaign which will have a very minimal amount of participant attrition and enthusiast ennui, and it is not particularly difficult to do so.​

(The latter passage then leads into a discussion of Boot Hill and Gamma World as D&D variants - ie the "other systems" referred to in the earlier passage.)

To me, spending most of their time visiting other planes implies name level or pretty close thereto. He certainly doesn't seem to be envisaging the same characters being played in a continuous campaign for years on end!
 

AriochQ

Adventurer
My first thought after reading this post was "Get off my lawn you pesky kids!"

But seriously...I have been playing since 1978 and the current version of D&D is much more forgiving. As already discussed, zero HP death and 'save or die' spells have gone away. I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. IMHO, they were poor game design. Let's look at the 'save or die' mechanic. When combined with the 'auto fail on a 1', it means that you have a 5% chance of dying any time you roll. Anyone who played to higher levels 1st or 2nd ed. will remember that 'save or die' effects became increasingly common. Basically, you were going to roll a '1' (5% chance each time you roll) and die at some point. Is that a good mechanic? I would say no.

On the other hand, I agree that the pendulum has veered too far toward 'no risk'. This is especially apparent in Adventurer's League play. Outside AL, individual DM's can tailor their own games to the lethality they desire, so I don't see it as a issue of concern.

In short, the OP is probably right regarding lethality/challenge but I don't think it is ever appropriate to tell anyone they are playing D&D wrong.
 

...I have been playing since 1978 and the current version of D&D is much more forgiving. As already discussed, zero HP death and 'save or die' spells have gone away. I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. IMHO, they were poor game design. Let's look at the 'save or die' mechanic. When combined with the 'auto fail on a 1', it means that you have a 5% chance of dying any time you roll. Anyone who played to higher levels 1st or 2nd ed. will remember that 'save or die' effects became increasingly common. Basically, you were going to roll a '1' (5% chance each time you roll) and die at some point. Is that a good mechanic? I would say no.

On the other hand, I agree that the pendulum has veered too far toward 'no risk'. This is especially apparent in Adventurer's League play. Outside AL, individual DM's can tailor their own games to the lethality they desire, so I don't see it as a issue of concern.

In short, the OP is probably right regarding lethality/challenge but I don't think it is ever appropriate to tell anyone they are playing D&D wrong.

Let's not forget that 1e also required a resurrection survival roll, based on constitution, that offered a pretty good chance of dying permanently even as you were being brought back from the dead. I recall losing several characters to such a die roll.
 

AriochQ

Adventurer
Let's not forget that 1e also required a resurrection survival roll, based on constitution, that offered a pretty good chance of dying permanently even as you were being brought back from the dead. I recall losing several characters to such a die roll.

I could live without that, but I did sort of like the level loss upon death that some groups used. Given the slow rate of leveling in 1e, it made a death (even with a successful resurrection) very painful and thus more meaningful.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The nearest I could find was this, on pp 58, 112:

If your players wish to spend most of their time visiting other planes (and this could come to pass after a year or more of play) then you will be hard pressed unless you rely upon other game systems to fill the gaps. . . .

While it might seem highly unlikely to those who have not been involved in fantasy adventure gaming for an extended period of time, after the flush of excitement wears off - perhaps a few months or a year, depending on the intensity of play - some participants will become bored and move to other gaming forms, returning to your campaign only occasionally. Shortly thereafter even your most dedicated players will ococcasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges. It is possible, however, for you to devise a campaign which will have a very minimal amount of participant attrition and enthusiast ennui, and it is not particularly difficult to do so.​

(The latter passage then leads into a discussion of Boot Hill and Gamma World as D&D variants - ie the "other systems" referred to in the earlier passage.)
I've always taken those few pages to be little more than an advertisement for TSR's other game systems at the time, and thus largely ignored them. :) Looked at more closely, the whole section seems to be about keeping players interested if the base campaign is losing them; be it by jumping to a different system, interjecting some offbeat adventuring (he mentions his Alice in Wonderland levels in Castle Greyhawk as an example), visiting other planes, etc.

And - and this is very relevant to the discussion we've been having elsewhere - on p. 112 under "The Ongoing Campaign" the second paragraph is all about having an ongoing backstory as a means of maintaining player interest and giving the PCs a greater purpose in the game world.

To me, spending most of their time visiting other planes implies name level or pretty close thereto. He certainly doesn't seem to be envisaging the same characters being played in a continuous campaign for years on end!
While he may not have envisioned that when he wrote the DMG, it's exactly what ended up happening in a great many instances. I think that's in part due to the tone taken in the introduction to the PH, which a) seems to point much more strongly to longer ongoing (and interweaving) campaigns and parties, and b) would have been read by many more people, at least to begin with.

As for the "visiting other planes" bit, I'm starting to wonder if that's based more on his experiences DMing his own game...which from what I can tell mostly took place in one great big dungeon: Castle Greyhawk. If he or his players wanted something different, pretty much the only option was to jump to another plane to find it.

You are using the wrong levels: as per DMG p 86, "The level of the aspiring character should be computed at current (not to be gained) level." Hence [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s figure of 15,000 is correct, assuming a "roleplay" factor of 1: 1+2+3+4 = 10, x 1500 = 15,000 gp.
Huh. I never noticed that. Apologies to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] .

Lan-"probably a good thing I never used the RAW to set my games' training costs; I'd have been doing it wrong for 30+ years"-efan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Let's not forget that 1e also required a resurrection survival roll, based on constitution, that offered a pretty good chance of dying permanently even as you were being brought back from the dead. I recall losing several characters to such a die roll.
IME a failed resurrection roll can in fact open up some adventuring opportunities, in part because on a failed roll the casting Cleric often gets a vague notion as to what caused the failure (or can cast Commune and ask).

In two cases (each in a different campaign, and about 18 years apart) I've seen characters decide, after a PC failed a raise because some deity said 'no', to take it on themselves to adventure their way into the land of the dead (without dying!), find the soul of their dearly departed, and then attempt to either buy/bribe it out or get it out by force/stealth.

They're one-for-two. The force/stealth group did manage to get their target soul out - just - while the buy/bribe group ended up losing a contest of champions that had their souls vs. their target's soul as the stakes.

Lan-"it's not the gettin' there that's the problem - it's the gettin' back"-efan
 

Let's not forget that 1e also required a resurrection survival roll, based on constitution, that offered a pretty good chance of dying permanently even as you were being brought back from the dead. I recall losing several characters to such a die roll.
My favorite random death roll was for the haste spell, which let you make twice as many attacks in a round at the cost of magically aging a year (where any sort of magical aging triggers a system shock roll). It's certainly one way of balancing a spell.
 

Libramarian

Adventurer
You're speaking my language @lewpuls! I largely share your preferences and hope you keep writing articles here.

It's interesting that old editions of D&D literally called XP an award while newer editions call it a reward.

However I think D&D evolved in this direction not so much to appeal to a broader pool of players, but DMs. Most new DMs do not have the restraint and conscientiousness needed to run Gamist D&D. They gravitate to a storytelling style where they script everything of consequence in advance, and therefore find the greater predictability of modern D&D play a boon.

E.g. the reduced risk of PC death is often advocated in terms of reducing player discouragement but I think more important is the fact that newb DMs don't deal well with random PC deaths or extemporaneous resurrection quests interrupting their plot.

The players are there for hardcore gamist play. I recently picked up Battlefield 1 and was shocked to see how unforgiving it is for a modern AAA videogame to new players. I must have died 30 or 40 times before getting my first kill. The Dark Souls games of course are also huge sellers while being notoriously frustrating to play.

IIRC in the run-up to 5e Mearls/Crawford mentioned that most DMs don't read the DMG so their options for DM training are limited. At one point they said they wanted to make instructional videos. Seems like they expect streamed games to provide that instead but the problem with that is scripted, participatory D&D (with attractive, charismatic players) will win the battle for views every time over procedurally hygienic, gamist D&D.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Libramarian

Adventurer
this whole post reads like an old person
And that, as far as I'm concerned, tends to make this sound like he's just an old geezer
*facepalm* Oh boy, it's one of those articles by some older person...I can grab any person over 50 off the street and hear this same complaint

I hope I'm not the only one discomfited by this ageism. It's not right to dismiss someone's opinion just because they're old or sounds like they're old.
 

Hussar

Legend
I hope I'm not the only one discomfited by this ageism. It's not right to dismiss someone's opinion just because they're old or sounds like they're old.

No, but it is right to dismiss someone's opinion when it carries no weight, isn't supported by the actual facts, and has been repeated ad nauseam over the past thirty years.

Sorry, but, none of the things in 5e are new. Again, we had Dragonlance back in 1984. My James Bond 007 game is dated 1983 (which included ALL SORTS of rules for keeping the PC's alive). My Star Frontiers game was published in 1982 and, complete with the three Volturnus modules, ran a pretty sweet story based campaign. On and on and on.

Could you play RPG's the way you are talking about? Sure, of course. No one is denying that. What's being denied is that somehow this was the only way RPG's were ever played and it is this big change in gaming that we have now. It's nostalgia glasses of the worst kind.
 

Epic Threats

Visit Our Sponsor

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top