D&D General D&D 2024 does not deserve to succeed

[Paul Farquhar]

Probably what is more "modern heroic" is closer to the concept of chivalric virtues, I presume.

I wouldn't say so. Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy? The guys who only save the galaxy because they are the aholes who have to live in it seem fairly typical of modern heroes.

 

[Minigiant]

All this talk about heros...

I posit that D&D has become a superhero game.

I mean the effective "healing factor" of D&D PC's would put Wolverine and Deadpool to shame.

D&D was always a superhero game.

But like the Marvel Avengers or Mutants, there were different categories of superhero power.

 

[Remathilis]

You've got to get to level 1 somehow.

Can I skip feeding 100 farmers into a Rube Goldberg dungeon and just start with a character I want to play?

 

[Corinnguard]

Probably what is more "modern heroic" is closer to the concept of chivalric virtues, I presume.

Not really. The heroes we see on TV or in the movies are more likely to be flawed in some way.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yolo = You Only Live Once. The carpe diem of the Gen Z crowd.

Pretty sure the Millenials coined that. It's at least twenty years old now.

YOLO | Know Your Meme

“YOLO” is an acronym for the phrase “you only live once” which is often used as a hashtag on Twitter to bring attention to exciting events or an excuse for

knowyourmeme.com

My point is that the game has been geared towards playing heroes from the beginning. A book called Gods, Demigods and heroes. Hero and superhero as titles. Potions of heroism and super heroism. The forward of the 1e DMG describing the game as having heroic adventure awaiting them. A description the DM as the game being for those who want play in a game populated by larger than life heroes. The game not having hit locations with wounds, breaks, etc. not being the stuff of heroic fantasy. Quote after quote about the game being about heroic fantasy in the DMG.

From the beginning the assumption is that players would be playing heroes.

One could argue that the Heroes in DDG&H are legendary examples to aspire to. The title is referring to NPCs in the book, not to PCs. And the potions bestow heroic qualities onto someone, which implies they're not already.

But your other points are dead-on.

I disagree. Heroism in modern western culture has a moral component I don't see forced or even really encouraged in the old books. The Hickman Revolution was the real instrument of change there, and even that didn't mess with the rules much until quite some time later. I really feel this is seeing history through the lens of personal preference. Maybe I'm doing the same thing, but that doesn't make my take on this less valid than yours.

The mid 80s is definitely the period when the default assumption shifted to heroic as in goodly. While OD&D and 1E assumed that a majority of PCs would be heroic, by 2E they were de-facto discouraging anything else, while OE and 1E left being villainous or amoral more of an open option. They did discourage it in subtle ways, though.

I think one of the issues in this discussion is what we mean by "heroic". Are we just talking about lawful and good, or are we talking about supernormal, extraordinary, and even magical? Protagonists who have abilities above and beyond, and often MUCH above and beyond, those of an ordinary person? Both have been discussed.

I don't know man. If you can't see that Gygax was talking about heroism and playing heroes on all over the place, I don't know what to tell you. It has never been forced, and still isn't, but it was highly encouraged by being mentioned everywhere.

Evil characters being able to use (powerful) poisons is arguably an area where AD&D gives an incentive to playing villains, but because the DMG hammers on the limits and restrictions and enforcing downsides, it's a pretty weak example. The henchmen morale rules are more subtle, but the loyalty modifiers on page 37, particularly alignment of liege adjustments, are concrete incentives to play lawful and good characters. Things like being able to ally /group up with powerful Rangers and Paladins vs the much weaker Assassins are more player-facing and obvious.

I actually think its a bit debatable if Gary assumed heroes would be the default method of play. The existence of the half-orc, the assassin class, and the warning of mixing alignments (rather than outright restricting them) lends some credence to it. Certainly, I don't think the days of Mordenkainen, Rollibar, and Tenser were as heroic as modern D&D says they were! However, the "heroic" strand of D&D did also exist from an early era. Certainly, paladins and rangers being mandated to be good aligned, the fact that "good" aligned races (elves, dwarves, and halflings) were PC races and "evil" aligned ones (goblins, kobolds and orcs) were not, and the fact that Law and Goodness are seen as the correct state of the world while Chaos and Evil are wrong seems to nudge players into the idea that heroic play is the preferred method.

I will say regardless, by 2nd edition, the notion that PCs were anything but heroes was firmly established. I think you can see the emerging of that coming from Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms in 1e as well, and certainly Basic (B/X and later BECMI) heavily leaned on that notion in its presentation and modules.

I think that's just Gary taking both sides of things again. Most of the game is geared towards the heroic, but there are things like the Assassin, poisons, evil alignments, etc. that indicate that you weren't forced down that path.

And as usual, the "evil" actions had consequences to them that often made them that discouraged use. Using poison for instance got you attacked more often and the watch was often called on you if you were in town in a fight with poison on your weapon.

The 1e game encouraged heroes all over the place, but left open options for those who didn't want to be heroes.

Yes, pretty much.

And the original rules absolutely were intended to simulate heroic (as in extraordinary, mythic) fantasy fiction. The whole invention of Hit Points was because one of Dave Arneson's players was dissatisfied when his heroic knight character got killed in a single round of combat against a troll.

As two major examples from AD&D, we can refer to Gary's explanations of the nature of the game, and of and saving throws, which are both very clear that it's intended to be heroic fantasy.

THE GAME

APPROACHES TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. 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-than-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.

(bold emphasis mine)

SAVING THROWS
The term saving throw is common enough, coming to us from miniature wargames and D&D. It represents the chance for the figure concerned to avoid (or at least partially avoid) the cruel results of fate. In AD&D it is the same. By means of skill, luck, magical protections, quirks of fate and the aid of supernatural powers, the character making his or her saving throw takes none or only part of the indicated results - fireball damage, poisoning, being turned to stone, or whatever. The various saving throws are shown on the appropriate tables -for characters, monsters, and items as well. When someone or something fails to roll the number shown, or better, whatever is coming comes in full. To better understand the concept of the saving throw, the following is offered:

As has been often pointed out, AD&D is a game wherein participants create personae and operate them in the milieu created and designed, in whole or in part, by the Dungeon Master and shared by all, including the DM, in imagination and enthusiasm. The central theme of this game is the interaction of these personae, whether those of the players or those of the DM, with the milieu, including that part represented by the characters and creatures personified by the DM. This interaction results in adventures and deeds of daring. The heroic fantasy which results is a blend of the dramatic and the comic, the foolish and the brave, stirring excitement and grinding boredom. 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.

(Bolding for emphasis mine.)

That's a whole lot of verbiage making clear that the entire purpose and function of the saving throw is to support heroic (as in extraordinary, wonderful, mythic, epic) narrative play.

 

[Mannahnin]

Can I skip feeding 100 farmers into a Rube Goldberg dungeon and just start with a character I want to play?

Sure can. The funnel is a fun option for those who enjoy it, but definitely still an option.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can I skip feeding 100 farmers into a Rube Goldberg dungeon and just start with a character I want to play?

If you want. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the character funnel though.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Can I skip feeding 100 farmers into a Rube Goldberg dungeon and just start with a character I want to play?

Sure, but you'll have a mortgage on a starship to worry about.

 

[Oofta]

D&D was always a superhero game.

But like the Marvel Avengers or Mutants, there were different categories of superhero power.

Yeah, superhero covers a vast array of powers. Everything from a guy who is a little more resilient than most people and good at martial arts while also having unique sensory radar like Daredevil to Superman who (depending on version) has basically godlike powers. A high level archer based fighter is not much different than The Green Arrow, but no barbarian will ever have the sheer strength of the Incredible Hulk who can toss around tanks that likely weigh 60 tons or more.

Which is why I sometimes have an issue with D&D characters are "basically superheroes". It just depends on the superhero.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Not really. The heroes we see on TV or in the movies are more likely to be flawed in some way.

I wouldn't say so. Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy? The guys who only save the galaxy because they are the aholes who have to live in it seem fairly typical of modern heroes.

"Modern" compared to ancient Greece but yeah, I wasn't clear at all. Sorry.
But good point on the fact that we ultimately have both very strongly felt.
After all, in a modern saga, we have Luke, a literal aspiring Knight, and we have Han Solo - which is expected to be more of the scoundrel type and then defies this with a certain choice.
Probably we should just admit that tension and drama come from the co-existence of these interpretations of what an Hero is, and D&D had intentionally both in its inception. Hence the Law vs Chaos.