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

[Maxperson]

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.

I thought about that, but with Elric few Elric exceptions, like Elric, most of them are heroes of legend, in the mythology for heroic deeds.

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 started playing 1e in 1983 and we were there already, so I think a bit before the mid 80's.

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.

No, not just LG. If my neutral PC runs into a burning building to save some orphans and then runs back in to save the headmaster's rum, that's heroic. I think risk of harm or death to help another, even if there is some reward in it for you in the end, is still heroic in D&D terms.

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.

Yeah. And damage. First, you can kill a dragon with a piece of metal that's not even long enough to pierce its hide. That's another heroic addition. Second, monsters that outweigh you by several tons don't just smoosh you with one hit, even if you have 100 hit points.

(bold emphasis mine)


(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.

Yep. And the hit point section itself mentions the following...

"It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection."

Heck, it's even in the economics section.

"The economic systems of areas beyond the more active campaign areas can be viably based on lesser wealth only until the stream of loot begins to pour outwards into them. While it is possible to reduce treasure in these area to some extent so as to prolong the period of lower costs, what kind of a dragon hoard, for example, doesn't have gold and gems? It is simply more heroic for players to have their characters swaggering around with pouches full of gems and tossing out gold pieces than it is for them to have coppers. Heroic fantasy is made of fortunes and king's ransoms in loot
gained most cleverly and bravely and lost in a twinkling by various means - thievery, gambling, debauchery, gift-giving, bribes, and so forth. The "reality" AD&D seeks to create through role playing is that of the mythical heroes such as Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Kothar, Elric, and their ilk. When treasure is spoken of, it is more stirring when participants know it to be TREASURE!"

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, at least they didn't have a 5 minute long fight on a jet that was taking off.

Conan really jumped the shark when that happened.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What does it make you wonder? Care to elaborate?

I could, but should not. I don’t think I should have written that in the first place. My mistake.

 

[Mannahnin]

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 started playing 1e in 1983 and we were there already, so I think a bit before the mid 80's.

I'm saying the default expectation by TSR. Obviously some folks were starting to play in a more heroic mode in the 70s. Possibly as early as '75 like with Lee Gold's crew in CA playing more story-oriented (being more sci-fi fans and less wargamers). The 70s (as we see documented in The Elusive Shift) saw the big creative explosion of people discussing agendas of play, but TSR lagged a bit in how much they emphasized the more story-forward approach. What came to be known as the Trad culture of play vs. Classic, in Gary's mold.

1E AD&D in the '78-'88 period was trying to accommodate both approaches, but as their customer base shifted younger in the fad years, as sensationalist media and reactionaries started demonizing the game, and as the Hickman Revolution and Dragonlance took off, TSR shifted increasingly away from supporting amoral adventuring heroes and the option to play villains, and more and more toward the expectation being that you'd play goodly heroes. 2E in 1989 making gold for xp an optional rule was another concrete watermark.

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.

No, not just LG. If my neutral PC runs into a burning building to save some orphans and then runs back in to save the headmaster's rum, that's heroic. I think risk of harm or death to help another, even if there is some reward in it for you in the end, is still heroic in D&D terms.

Sure, I agree, but in AD&D terms that heroic action is Good, even if the character is generally neutral.

Micah was talking about morally positive and benevolent actions, and in referencing lawful and good I was talking less about character alignments and more about differentiating two definitions of "heroic". Morally brave and admirable vs epic, extraordinary, and superlative in the scale of a hero's capabilities and actions.

 

[Imaro]

Conan really jumped the shark when that happened.

While we're on the subject of jumping the shark...Let's not forget Conan is officially a member of the Avengers...

 

[Mannahnin]

While we're on the subject of jumping the shark...Let's not forget Conan is officially a member of the Avengers...
View attachment 379454

Neat!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, at least they didn't have a 5 minute long fight on a jet that was taking off.

Implausible. In D&D it would take an hour.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Implausible. In D&D it would take an hour.

for a 5 minute fight? brother, that'd take 5 SESSIONS, minimum.

 

[Oofta]

Implausible. In D&D it would take an hour.

The fight might might have taken an hour. But taking off? That's just a move action.

 

[Maxperson]

for a 5 minute fight? brother, that'd take 5 SESSIONS, minimum.

Nah. I'd quite the game after 2 sessions. 50 rounds is a loooooooooooong time.