D&D (2024) DM's no longer getting crits on PC's

[Umbran]

That's not quite accurate in terms of risk in Fate

This thread is not about the details of Fate, so I didn't go into them. The major point being - death is only a consequence in Fate if someone actively chooses it. It cannot happen as a random event at all. The rules of Fate will never kill a character - only specific choices will do that.

Death is, by far, not the only possible consequence in Fate, but the D&D core rules don't have (and historically haven't had) analogs for other things Fate uses as meaningful consequences. And this discussion is about critical hits - so damage - whose basic D&D consequence is... death.

 

[Reynard]

That's true, but I still believe in the principle of CapnZapp's post, for my game. I personally don't find a game fun if the PCs aren't being threatened, whether I'm the DM or not.

Sure. The point I was responding to is that 25 years crits weren't necessary for threat, and still aren't. (Don't get me wrong, I like crits, but it is because I like unpredictability, not necessarily PC death.)

 

[Umbran]

TSR editions did not really need crits because the power level was generally lower.

Well, the character power as compared to their opponents was lower. But that's an issue of encounter and adventure design more than anything else - one can always choose to have the difference in power between character and adversary be different in 5e, so that you stop needing criticals there as well.

 

[Reynard]

Well, the character power as compared to their opponents was lower. But that's an issue of encounter and adventure design more than anything else - one can always choose to have the difference in power between character and adversary be different in 5e, so that you stop needing criticals there as well.

I think we can all agree that 5e is better when we throw out the CR system.

 

[Umbran]

(Don't get me wrong, I like crits, but it is because I like unpredictability, not necessarily PC death.)

And that's fine. And it is super-awesome to recognize this as "because I like..." That's key.

Now, as we consider game design, that appetite for unpredictability is an interesting point, as we consider edition changes over time - in the sense that all entertainments are products of their times, and the appetites for particular elements is influenced by the world the audience actually lives in.

The appetite for unpredictability has already been driven down by an increase in desire for longer, more personal story beats in RPGs. Or at least, so it seems to me, looking at the adventure products WotC and Paizo put out, and the kinds of other games that are being produced.

We might add to that in an increasingly unpredictable world, the overall appetite for similar unpredictability in games may be reduced. Not that players will want to be coddled with no-death games, but players may like games that allow them to manage risk more.

Like, coming out of years of fear of pandemic disease with a million+ casualties, random incidence of "oh crap, I'm dead!" may not be the best choice in a game design for a broad market for a while, you know what I mean?

 

[Umbran]

I think we can all agree that 5e is better when we throw out the CR system.

I find CR and XP budgets useful for creating rough drafts, but I sure as heck don't depend on them for hitting the mark I want.

 

[OB1]

I can't help but wonder if monsters critting isn't the reason monsters feel so weak in 5e. The designers had to take into account that a monster could crit in any given encounter (or even every given turn in an encounter) and so had to pull back on the throttle.

 

[tetrasodium]

This thread is not about the details of Fate, so I didn't go into them. The major point being - death is only a consequence in Fate if someone actively chooses it. It cannot happen as a random event at all. The rules of Fate will never kill a character - only specific choices will do that.

Death is, by far, not the only possible consequence in Fate, but the D&D core rules don't have (and historically haven't had) analogs for other things Fate uses as meaningful consequences. And this discussion is about critical hits - so damage - whose basic D&D consequence is... death.

That's kind of the point though, in d&d5e death is the only consequence and crits were one of the big ways for that to possibly be a risk. @CapnZapp's post you were quoting when fate's death hurdle was was raised talked about the importance of the heroes being able to feel risk The death comparison becomes questionable & maybe even misleading without system knowledge because there are numerous other risks that come into play for the heroes before the possible death.

I'm neutral on the crit changes because we don't yet know any details on the monster changes they are supposed to make room for. It could very well be that the other side of this coin turns out to be a great thing but it's a change that objectively does a lot to reduce if not eliminate the mere possibility of a PC being exposed to what is d&d's only real risk the heroes can face. That elimination makes the need to have some other forms of risk into more pressing need for many.

 

[Reynard]

And that's fine. And it is super-awesome to recognize this as "because I like..." That's key.

Now, as we consider game design, that appetite for unpredictability is an interesting point, as we consider edition changes over time - in the sense that all entertainments are products of their times, and the appetites for particular elements is influenced by the world the audience actually lives in.

The appetite for unpredictability has already been driven down by an increase in desire for longer, more personal story beats in RPGs. Or at least, so it seems to me, looking at the adventure products WotC and Paizo put out, and the kinds of other games that are being produced.

I agree with this bit.

We might add to that in an increasingly unpredictable world, the overall appetite for similar unpredictability in games may be reduced. Not that players will want to be coddled with no-death games, but players may like games that allow them to manage risk more.

Like, coming out of years of fear of pandemic disease with a million+ casualties, random incidence of "oh crap, I'm dead!" may not be the best choice in a game design for a broad market for a while, you know what I mean?

I am more ambivalent about this. I think it is very much a personal thing. Different people respond to stress and stimuli differently and I'm not sure we can draw any strong conclusions yet about how the pandemic might have affected D&D culture aside from making online gaming more palatable.

 

[Umbran]

I am more ambivalent about this. I think it is very much a personal thing.

Yes, but if your hope is to sell hundred of thousands or millions of units, you can't think about (and design for) individuals, you have to think about broad trends.

Different people respond to stress and stimuli differently and I'm not sure we can draw any strong conclusions yet about how the pandemic might have affected D&D culture aside from making online gaming more palatable.

The pandemic was only a handy example - it is by no means the only element of looming unpredictability in our world. Add all of them up...