Grittiness and Lethality in Game Combat vs in Read-Only Fiction

[DarkCrisis]

Just want to say, The One Ring rpg does LotRs injuries better then comparing it to D&D HP.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but many fantasy TTRPGs aren't - they're explicitly emulating fantasy fiction.

You can see that in how they're constructed, what their ideas are, and so on. Others still are more focused on providing something "game-able" than "emulating a fantasy world". I think I could count on one hand the games that make a real stab at "emulating a fantasy world". GURPS arguably is one. D&D is not, nor are most OSR games, they're concerned with game-ability and/or emulating fiction for the most part.

If a fantasy TTRPG is coming from the perspective of "emulating a world", that's cool, but which are? I feel like you're about to name a bunch of games which even you know definitely are not making that a high priority!

There are strong simulation elements and themes in many official versions of D&D as well as D&D-adjacent games, and I focus on and enhance these elements when I play, even if they're not what the game ostensibly focuses on, because that's the part that matters most to me. The best D&D-style games for this with which I am well familiar, however, are the Without Number series of games, and ACKS. Both are designed to support and prioritize sandbox play, and both emphasize the value of worldbuilding. That's what I want out of RPGs the vast majority of the time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The best D&D-style games for this with which I am well familiar, however, are the Without Number series of games, and ACKS. Both are designed to support and prioritize sandbox play, and both emphasize the value of worldbuilding. That's what I want out of RPGs the vast majority of the time.

There's no question Without Number is brilliant for worldbuilding and sandbox play. I would question, however, whether there is much meaningful "simulation" of fantasy worlds, rather than fantasy fiction, or game-able elements, in the actual mechanics, particularly of combat. I would even go as far as to suggest the Without Number games are more focused on being game-able in combat than the average OSR is, and less interested in simulation (mechanically, anyway).

However, one other nice thing about the Without Number games is that they have several dials you can tweak here, where D&D has tended to have none without making up houserules, for the most part!

I haven't signed up for his post-apocalypse one, but I probably should, if the KS is still going.

 

[PvtTommyAtkins]

I've spent a lot of time playing games where you can get killed pretty easily (RQ and GURPS), and it makes a profound difference to how players approach fights. You don't just wade in; you look for advantages, try to limit the number of opponents you'll be engaging at once, and generally use sensible tactics.

I'm fine with this; my interest is in the outcomes resulting from the fights, not "how many X I can deal with by myself."

I find that this really makes a difference with the player's I've met at various tables. Even different iterations of D&D. It seems AD&D and older folks have the combat as warfare approach: set up the situation before initiative is rolled so you have a decided advantage. Compared to 3rd ed and later who have a combat as a sport approach where they expect to wind every combat with the only possibility of death being the final boss (and even then, only if the dice go really bad).

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's no question Without Number is brilliant for worldbuilding and sandbox play. I would question, however, whether there is much meaningful "simulation" of fantasy worlds, rather than fantasy fiction, or game-able elements, in the actual mechanics, particularly of combat. I would even go as far as to suggest the Without Number games are more focused on being game-able in combat than the average OSR is, and less interested in simulation (mechanically, anyway).

However, one other nice thing about the Without Number games is that they have several dials you can tweak here, where D&D has tended to have none without making up houserules, for the most part!

I haven't signed up for his post-apocalypse one, but I probably should, if the KS is still going.

I signed up for Ashes Without Number right before it ended. So far it looks just as amazing as the others, while remaining compatible. The rules do have more emphasis on realism in many cases, and the PCs have very little in the way of plot armor, so that's great IMO. And I do think the mechanics promote simulation, they're just not as crunchy as they could be. The goal (simulating a fantastic world in a way that feels real and avoids making the game about story beats and blatant protagonism) remains the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find that this really makes a difference with the player's I've met at various tables. Even different iterations of D&D. It seems AD&D and older folks have the combat as warfare approach: set up the situation before initiative is rolled so you have a decided advantage. Compared to 3rd ed and later who have a combat as a sport approach where they expect to wind every combat with the only possibility of death being the final boss (and even then, only if the dice go really bad).

Combat as sport really bothers me. It very much goes against my gaming instincts.

 

[GrimCo]

Combat where life or serious body harm is not on the line is- sport. At least for me.

TTRPG-s are tools. Systems of various mechanics used to mostly resolve conflict in more or less unbiased way. You can use those rules to recreate fiction or you can use them to recreate worlds. FE as a DM i can use d&d 5e for both. For me at least it's not about rules, it's how you use those rules.

 

[MichaelSomething]

How many of you killed a character over the objection of the player? I have.

 

[John Dallman]

It seems AD&D and older folks have the combat as warfare approach: set up the situation before initiative is rolled so you have a decided advantage. Compared to 3rd ed and later who have a combat as a sport approach where they expect to win every combat with the only possibility of death being the final boss (and even then, only if the dice go really bad).

Um . . . combat with lethal force needs to be taken seriously, even if you expect to win.

How many of you killed a character over the objection of the player? I have.

Yup. I've also imprisoned a character for a decade, for murder. Claiming that he was allowed to kill people because he was an Assassin didn't go down well with the judge.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I find that this really makes a difference with the player's I've met at various tables. Even different iterations of D&D. It seems AD&D and older folks have the combat as warfare approach: set up the situation before initiative is rolled so you have a decided advantage. Compared to 3rd ed and later who have a combat as a sport approach where they expect to wind every combat with the only possibility of death being the final boss (and even then, only if the dice go really bad).

In 3rd Edition, you win combat because you used system mastery to make a character that can defeat any situation. You scry your opponent, cast twenty buffs, then teleport in to ambush them [emoji14]